Kristof: More sweatshops, please
posted at 11:00 am on January 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
In the new administration, we will likely see a shift away from free trade dressed as concern over working conditions and compensation for workers abroad. The Obama administration will probably use the term “sweatshops” frequently in rationalizing a more protectionist trade policy than its predecessor. Nicholas Kristof warned a week ago that focusing on sweatshops as a human-rights abuse obscures the opportunity they represent in real life:
Before Barack Obama and his team act on their talk about “labor standards,” I’d like to offer them a tour of the vast garbage dump here in Phnom Penh.
This is a Dante-like vision of hell. It’s a mountain of festering refuse, a half-hour hike across, emitting clouds of smoke from subterranean fires.
The miasma of toxic stink leaves you gasping, breezes batter you with filth, and even the rats look forlorn. Then the smoke parts and you come across a child ambling barefoot, searching for old plastic cups that recyclers will buy for five cents a pound. Many families actually live in shacks on this smoking garbage.
Mr. Obama and the Democrats who favor labor standards in trade agreements mean well, for they intend to fight back at oppressive sweatshops abroad. But while it shocks Americans to hear it, the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough.
Kristof writes almost exclusively about poverty for the New York Times, and no one will confuse him for a corporate lackey under any circumstances. He puts a vital element back into the argument over trade and labor standards: context.
Options for fighting poverty anywhere fall into two categories: welfare and investment. The former only prolongs the misery, while the latter raises standards of living and builds an economy that can lift people out of poverty permanently. In order to get investment, especially in manufacturing, the target has to promise more economic benefit than competing sites, and labor costs are a major component of that calculus.
That doesn’t mean that the US should not insist on safe working conditions and limits on child labor, but it does mean that we need to understand compensation in the context of the local economy. What sounds like exploitation wages for Americans are often quantum leaps in compensation and safety for poor people in third-world nations. Without a “sweatshop” option providing safe jobs and significant wages, children live — and die — in the garbage dump for a meager subsistence living. They dream about these “sweatshop” jobs, working indoors with a chance to earn real money and not die under the wheels of garbage trucks.
The context of wages and compensation for these manufacturing jobs has to be understood before we walk down the path of Smoot-Hawley trade policy once again, this time with righteous fervor against non-existent exploitation. Hopefully, the new administration will listen to Kristof before triggering a collapse in global trade that would turn this recession into another full-blown depression. (via QandO)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
And while investment may take longer to create a decent standard of living and working conditions, it’s also a long term solution.
BadgerHawk on January 23, 2009 at 11:02 AM
So the Obama administration is going to pursue protectionist policies during a serious economic downturn.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t another administration try that? Weren’t the results disasterous?
Mike Honcho on January 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM
You know, you may be onto something there. But given how often Obama and his supporters in the press like to compare him to historical figures, I’m sure they’re on top of that and would never make the same mistakes that got us into the Great Depression.
BadgerHawk on January 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM
I think you are missing the point for liberals. They are not really worried about sweatshops abroad, but that we don’t have enough here. This is about employing our own underclass, illegal immigrants.
Rocks on January 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM
… Democrats who favor labor standards in trade agreements mean well …
Don’t they always. LBJ MEANT well with his ‘Great Society’ and look at what that did to black families.
Tony737 on January 23, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Every economic nation in recent history, began it’s climb in the textile industry…even the U.S., the textile industry was a foundation of our economy at the beginning…low pay, low skill, and sometimes at home, is what “entry” level is.
And an emerging nation, doesn’t just begin producing high tech devices, it has to develop a work force.
right2bright on January 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM
What a role reversal. Dems want to keep jobs in the USA and Republicans want to send jobs to foreign lands. Dems are honorable and republicans are crooks. What changed folks?
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Pro child labor
LimeyGeek on January 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM
If I owned a business, I should have the right to hire whoever I want. What’s crooked about hiring someone who happens to live somewhere else?
jgapinoy on January 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Yes the liberals cry rivers of tears for the poor downtrodden of the world, just don’t let them move in next door and lower the property values.
Immigrants from South America can dust the shelves and nanny the kids, as long as they don’t get uppity and forget their place.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Dr. Walter Williams weighs in on this from 2004.
Wade on January 23, 2009 at 11:19 AM
What sounds like exploitation wages for Americans are often quantum leaps in compensation and safety for poor people in third-world nations.
Yeah, I remember in the 80s, the libs were crying about Nike sneakers being made in ‘sweatshops’ and how unfair it was for them to pay these people such low wages, even though they were getting paid WAY more than anybody else in their country.
Tony737 on January 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Why don’t you go ask the non-union people working at the Toyota plants down south?
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Hearts bleeding wide open…
Wyznowski on January 23, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Not just Cambodia–throughout south & southeast Asia & all of Latin America.
If it’s good for American businesses’ bottom line, how can it be bad for America? Profits go up, they expand the business & invest in R & D.
jgapinoy on January 23, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Free trade isn’t necessarily the problem. The problem is that we conduct trade as a function of foreign policy. This is why we allow other nations to peg their currency to ours, and allow nations like Columbia to import without tariffs while placing tariffs on our imports. Free trade in it’s absolute theoretical form works, but we allow nations to keep a finger on the scale, thus never letting that scale begin to balance out as economic theory demands.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Sometimes Nick Kristof gets it right. Jobs, even poor paying jobs, are better than no jobs at all. Especially in the developing world.
Mr. Joe on January 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM
If only this were true.
In reality, there goal is to protect their clients, American unions from foreign competition.
They are quite aware that it took American workers over 200 years to build up to the standards that we have today. By demanding that other countries skip this build up is nothing more than a demand to price themselves out of the competition.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Hear, hear, Ed.
Dusty on January 23, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Don’t you know that all we have to do is shutdown all the WalMarts and all the sweatshops will disappear? You haven’t been paying attention…/sarc
kirkill on January 23, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Didn’t Reagan and a bit of trade restriction policy have something to do with the Japanese auto makes having plants in the U.S.?
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Have you learned nothing from the last 30 years of corporatism gone horribly wrong? When your only concern is that its good for American business profit margin then you produce a situation where no one cares how you get to that profit margin. Even if it means bundling mortgage backed securities or, more relevant to this topic, ensuring that America is a nation of consumers rather than producers. The whole notion of “trickle down” economics relies upon American businesses investing in AMERICAN jobs, not using their profits to expand wages overseas while folks here go out of work. Yes, if these companies hired Americas they’d have to accept a cut in their profit margin, but if more Americans are employed than they can spend money on things (rather than going into debt to consume on a credit card, which is unsustainable). What’s good for business isn’t automatically what’s good for America.
Oh and I find the premnise of this post entirely insulting. Exactly what practices are folks willing to accept for free trade. In Vietnam unproductive women are often raped as punishment is THAT worth the wage? Would you accept that if your option was poverty or that kind of a workplace situation. Of course not. We actually should care where our money goes, but I guess conservatism and “moral compass” don’t belong in the same sentence.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Wouldn’t it be great to have a union equivalent to the UAW controlling domestic textile workers?
I know I’d enjoy paying $50 for a pair of socks.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM
There are three types of investment.
1) Direct investment in plant and equipment.
2) Investment in infrastructure.
3) Investment in human capital. (IE, knowledge and skills)
While foreign investors can provide 1, 2 and 3 can only be developed over time.
Until 2 and 3 reach the levels seen in the US and other western countries, the the plants being built, no matter how advanced technologically, will never be as productive as plants in the US. As a result, they can’t afford to pay their workers the kind of wages seen in western countries.
In reality, without the investment in 2 and 3, it makes no sense to build a plant with the kind of technology available in the west. The lack of infrastructure guarentees that advanced technologies will degrade rapidly.
These demands are nothing more than a veiled attempt to impoverish the rest of the world (and American consumers as well) in order to protect the lifestyles of a few unionized workers and their union bosses.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM
More than that, it’s the only solution, short or long term.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 11:38 AM
In Thailand, kids are sold into prostitution by their families because they can’t afford to keep them. In Egypt, people live also on a mssive dump heap because there are no jobs/opportunities. In China, baby girls are killed becasue they cost money in dowries and the like. In Uganda children are abandoned by their parents who cannot afford to keep them.
What part of maybe selling kids into prostitution or killing them are you okay with? Or do you actually know anything about the world outside of your little circle?
mjk on January 23, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Another point about sweatshops – in many cases, they are an alternative to prostitution. On a relative basis, it’s better to work for menial wages in a sweatshop than as a sex worker.
Enrique on January 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Go watch “Slumdog Millionaire” – excellent slice of life from India.
My wife asked if it was really like that. I said the film is a drama
and would probably get an NR rating if it were a true documentary
that showed the reality that is most of the world.
izoneguy on January 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM
This is completely illogical. Companies don’t take cuts in their profit margin. They simply pass it on to us, the consumers. How will that help Americans with massive credit card debt?
This is what bothers me about liberals. You simultaneously assume people are horrible and greedy and honest and good nature. Which is it? Are they so greedy that they invest in sweat shops for more profit, or are they kind hearted enough to take a cut in their profit when spending more on labor?
You can’t have both, Death.
Try asking her. You assume to speak for people you know absolutely nothing about and refuse to look at the facts for even a remote clue.
These women aren’t slaves. They can stop working there anytime they choose and yet they don’t. Surely that should tell you how she views the wage she is receiving.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Ehhh… isn’t this just what the liberals hate about us? Don’t we just run around making everyone bend to our moral compass? Aren’t we oppressing science and women’s reproductive rights and gay marriage rights with our “moral compass”? This is completely ridiculous.
fiscallyconservative on January 23, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Hey, if the sweatshops shut down there’s always child prostitution.
And, while I’m thinking about it, didn’t one of these liberal rags recently run an article about how a child sold as a slave to African families moving to the U.S. was better off than their brothers and sisters who had to live back home in poverty?
So… child slavery good, sweatshops bad?
29Victor on January 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Spare us. There are atrocities occuring in any number of underdeveloped nations, but we only care if we believe there’s a viable labor force that can produce our goods on the cheap. During a time of economic trouble American businesses should be focused entirely on finding ways to employ Americans. American consumers need to be buying treasury bonds like they did in WW2 when we basically funded the war and the wartime industry. We just can not pretend that corporations are going to magically start expanding American jobs if we allow them to employ cheap overseas labor. What will they do, shut their doors? Unlikely. Management will have to take a pay cut and just deal. God, rich people are such whiners.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
We actually should care where our money goes, but I guess conservatism and “moral compass” don’t belong in the same sentence.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM
In Bangladesh, workers are exposed to chemicals and products which are caustic and cause a huge range of illnesses.
The Chinese military has an extensive gulag/work camp system to produce goods whose profits will be used to buy tanks.
South American sweatshops employ children in jobs that often leave them crippled before reaching adulthood.
Yet you buy the products they produce anyway; more than likely the shirt you are wearing was made in Bangladesh and your shoes in China.
Your moral compass seems to be pointing all directions at once.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Why yes there were. Obama is trying his hardest to create the next great disaster so he can blame Bush and create his Obamalot.
izoneguy on January 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM
How is this a role reversal? Dems are always thinking of the short-term superficial “good” while Republicans go a little deeper.
Capitalism doesn’t always look pretty, but it’s beautiful.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Liberals like to scream that it took the federal govt to end child labor.
However, if you examine the actual record, you will find that child labor had virtually disappeared from the US well before it’s being outlawed. Child labor existed in only a few small pockets. Family businesses; farms, grocery stores, etc. Lo and behold. What places were excluded from the child labor laws. Family businesses; farms, grocery stores, etc.
The truth is that child labor was once necessary. Lack of technology meant that the labor of the parents was not sufficient to produce enough output to feed the family. Children had to work, otherwise the family starved.
When technology advanced enough that the parents labor was enough to support the family, the families, on their own, decided that children should be in school, not the factory.
Why was this? It was because families loved their children, and wanted what was best for them.
Many 2nd and 34d world countries are still where the US was 100 years ago. The only thing that will eliminate child labor is investment. The only way we can help, is by encouraging investment.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM
What will they do, shut their doors? Unlikely. Management will have to take a pay cut and just deal. God, rich people are such whiners.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Eventually, yes. When apples cost four bucks apiece and t-shirts cost forty, people won’t buy them, they will make do with what they have and the producers will disappear.
God, jealousy is so undignified.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 11:46 AM
And thus raise the prices on things in a time when Americans cannot afford to pay more than we already are. Brilliant.
I’m guessing you were the kid who took the one donut immediately rather than waiting a little while to get two.
Take your own advice.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM
You simply don’t understand that by the rest of the world’s standards you’re one of those “rich whiners,” do you? And you’re going to begin whining when that pretty, new Blu-Ray player you want costs $1000 instead of $250, aren’t you. And you are actually naive enough that you believe that “management” will simply take it on the chin and prices won’t skyrocket.
I bet you believe that corporations pay taxes too, don’t you?
29Victor on January 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM
There is a trade bill before congress right now. In fact it’s been before congress for 4 or 5 years. This bill will address the very problem that you claim to be concerned with.
Unfortunately congressional Democrats refuse to pass this bill.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM
You’re talking about theory and how things are suppose to work, but our competitors aren’t allowing that natural progression to happen, and that is the real problem. We will have to use foreign trade as a “carrot” at times, but we have come to rely upon that carrot far too often. We have to begin to play foreign trade “to win” and use it in foreign policy as a scalpel and not a sledgehammer.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Yes, that’s exactly what they’ll do… just like they did the last time we passed a whole bunch of protectionist regulation in the 1930s. Apparently you have never studied History or Macroeconomics?
fiscallyconservative on January 23, 2009 at 11:49 AM
And neither can your side Esthie. All around us is the evidence that corporatism as an overall economic strategy does not work. When given the opportunity to dump American workers for cheaper foreign alternatives corporations took that opportunity, ending the “trickle” of their profits to Americans (the very reason Reagan Democrats supported lower corporate taxes in the first place remember).
What I’d like to see? A couple things. For one thing, there have to be TIGHT strings on all federal bailout money. That means the dictates of the stock market (i.e. that 8% profit is the only measure of success) can no longer rule the day. If a corporation is turning a 3% profit that’s actually succesful and if everyone in the management class takes a 25% pay cut (along with union workers) that’s potentially sustainable. And if that means that more plants here can be built and more wages/savings can get in the pockets of Americans than I’m all for it. Also Americans need to stop being so frickin cheap and start buying American made products. The more you buy the more those products will lead the market and the less sense it will make sense to send jobs overseas for a corporation. Yes it will take a massive cultural shift, but you know what, it’s exactly what we did in World War II. The biggest propaganda campaign of the war wasn’t overseas, it was domestic. Americans were encouraged to invest in their country, making sure to spend money and buy teasury bonds to support defense industries. I’m not sure why we’re so resistant to that kind of sacrifice in the present, but I’d love to see conservatives and Obama and liberals get on the stick about this critical cultural shift that has to happen.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 11:49 AM
When we traveled overseas (a lot) we often utilized the “airport road” concept to identify the relative economic health of whatever country visited, by comparing the footpaths alongside the airport road to the road as we were driven to the Embassy after our arrival. In many nations the footpaths are as wide if not wider than the splendid airport highway, and crowded with humanity, on foot. The instant sign of a poor nation with an entrenched rich upper class, little or no middle class, and lots and lots of poverty.
Next time you are overseas, try it out.
That said, when we push a nation to adopt high-tech industries, and close down “sweatshops” instead of seeking to help them build an encompassing infrastructure that addresses the least among them, we end up with resplendent boulevards from the airport to the capitals, and wide well-traveled footpaths on both sides of the expensive often seldom used airport highway.
Kristof is pretty much on target. We were advised in some places to not use certain items to disguise drops…a rusty crumpled cola can (with “stuff” inside) may work well in some countries for a drop, but in other countries, the moment that cola can was placed, someone would snatch it up to sell along with others to the junk dealer for cash…a few pennies, to be sure, but in a country with a per capita income of less than $1k annually, those few pennies meant life or starvation.
Fixating on high-tech and new technologies might mean cheaper products for American consumption, but does little to build an encompassing economic system. Look at Mexico. In the 60-70′s billions in investment were directed to Mexico from the US…and the money went where? Certainly not to the people, who were prevented from employment by dint of contacto, or “connections” and found necessities suddenly priced out of range for their meager or non-existant incomes.
In the meantime, the reprocessing of junk forms the basis for an entire level of many many overseas economies…and is necessary since many many countries have no safety net nor desire to spend foreign currency on such safety nets…and if there is poverty, so what? Poverty can be used to keep the churning of socialist revolution going, provides an easy scapegoat for the masses (“Those nasty rich Americans are the devil.”) and makes each daily economic decision firmly based on the whims of whomever holds power. Poverty is a successful tool used by many regimes to keep the masses in check is used “properly.”
But our elites understand little of this. In response many years ago to a comment about people in a certain country not eating well enough, a US government foreign service official, newly minted, stated that if only these people would eat healthy foods they’d be better off. A few minutes later we stopped the car and stepped into a market place where rats and bugs on a stick were being roasted over dung fires for sale as the midday meal for hundreds and hundreds. These folks could not afford to go to the government-run Freedom Market…hard currency only was accepted. Eating healthy was a luxury.
Economic freedom has to start somewhere…at the entry level. Charity won’t do it. Neither will the rich elites. Making it easy for Generalissimo Juan Fernandez to purchase a new SUV does nothing to feed ragpicker Juan Valdez. And people want to put the rag pickers and junk dealers (and the so-called sweatshops) out of business in the name of human rights? Being able to live and breathe seems to be a fundamental human right. Or am I wrong?
coldwarrior on January 23, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Liberals don’t want American companies benefiting from child labor. They don’t mind if third world benefits. If the running shoe company was a muslim concern in Indonesia, we wouldn’t hear about it.
Personally, I refuse to buy any products manufactured in any muslim country. I will not finance the jihad. That means no tile from Turkey, no carpets from Pakistan, no electronics from Indonesia or Malaysia. And no hummus! I once had a date with a unemployed lefty granola chick downtown. She took me to a trendy cafe and ordered hummus. I said thanks but no thanks. Neither she nor her hummus were right for me.
(Found out couple years ago she ended up with a drummer with facial piercings. A match made in heaven.)
keep the change on January 23, 2009 at 11:52 AM
It’s so hard not to buy something from China. Every Christmas I make it a point to, at the very least, not buy toys for my nieces and nephews from China. I know I haven’t cut them out completely, but until they stop poisoning our children, it’s still worth it to me.
Yes, because liberals, safely tucked away in luxury, feel they have the moral authority to tell others how to live, from clean, expensive energy, to economic policy.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 11:52 AM
The Democrats have NO shame. They prey upon the ignorance of the American electorate — because most Americans have never BEEN there (the third world). Not only are most Americans unable to conceive of the reality of living under those kinds of conditions, most refuse to subject themselves even to the briefest of visits.
I do not believe that this can truly be communicated by newspaper article or by internet blogs — even photographs and videos are not enough. To drink it in, a person has to stand there in the midst of it, smell the odors, watch the children, and witness multiple families sleeping in shifts in a 15 foot by 15 foot space that has no water or sewage service — one that floods regularly when the rains come. Context is indeed all important (finally something Ed and I agree on).
My collie says:
CyberCipher on January 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM
It’s a new, modern, global economy — time to grow up and adapt. Were you around in World War II? Your logic is archaic, but it’s impressively shrouded in patriotism so people can’t argue without somehow looking unpatriotic.
fiscallyconservative on January 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Didn’t you mother ever tell you “Don’t be an ass” when you were growing up?
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 11:53 AM
How’s your new global economy working out for us right now? I’ll take WWII levels of middle class prosperity over today’s wealth consolidation.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Bring on the depression!! If it gets bad enough may enough of these fools who elected him will start to realize what a putz this guy is. I won’t be holding my breath…
urbancenturion on January 23, 2009 at 11:56 AM
One question I would like to ask you. What are YOU doing to fix this? Is you answer to send jobs overseas? Obviously it isn’t working because we are sending jobs overseas and idling our own workers to do it. Yet these atrocities still occur. Through some strange twisted logic you have made a false connection between world wide atrocities and US economic policy.
You certainly do reach some presumptive conclusions about me. Thats okay I’ve reached some absolute conclusions about you too. Now we are even.
I obviously I know much more about the world than you do based on your reply. Perhaps because I have traveled the world and observed first hand the differences between the USA and many less fortunate nations.
What I have learned from you is you want to turn the USA into a third world nation. Will that make you happy? Nah, I don’t think anything would make you happy.
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 11:57 AM
It’s going to be fine, thank-you. I’m willing to have some perspective.
fiscallyconservative on January 23, 2009 at 11:57 AM
As everyone knows, anyone who works for private business is evil, and all consumers are ignorant and apathetic.
1) Corporate managers are human beings, they care for their employees (they have to, if they don’t the employees will leave) they also care for the communities they live in. They live there too.
You mean the ones that govt regulations required?
A logical impossibility. One has to produce before one can consume. The error that liberal lightweights typically make, is that they assume that unless something is made in a factory, there is no production.
A software program is as much “production” as is a car. The same with a movie or a song. When an American expert goes overseas, he is producing, just as much as an autoworker or a coal miner.
Just what do you think happens when them evil ferigners get those higher wages. They buy things. Many of those things are produced by American workers.
I also notice that you don’t care a flip about American consumers. Why do you want to force American housewives to pay more for the stuff their family needs, just because you want to protect American jobs. What do you think happens to the money those shoppers save? They don’t burn it or flush it down the toilet. They buy other things with it. Many of which are made by American workers.
We finally get to your true gripe. You hate it that companies make any profit at all.
In reality (a concept you would do well to familiarize yourself with), higher wages do not result in lower profits, they result in higer prices for American consumers.
And if more foreigners are employed, they will have the money to buy things, even things made in the US.
Putting American companies out of business isn’t terribly good for America either.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Almost. You’re basically admitting that corporate profits via foreign employment are more to you than a sustainable U.S. Um and no I wasn’t alive during WWII, but why is returning to a way of life that valorized American workers and American jobs not acceptable? Yes it’s a global economy, but who is the global economy serving? Are huge price increases the only option for corporations who would employ Americans instead or, would it be possible for the management class to take a pay cut. It certainly would be patriotic to sacrifice for their country’s economic health in that way. It’s certainly an easier sacrifice than the ones made by our (mostly) working class armed forces. But no one’s ever ASKED the management class to be patriotic in the last 50 years. They certainly like to lecture us about it. And support politicians who politicize patriotism in support of war (wars that also expand profit margins). But when it comes to asking that they *make* a patriotic sacrifice, suddenly it’s impossible. Odd.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 11:58 AM
I don’t. My economic and political philosophy is completely based around the idea that men (mankind for the PC) cannot be trusted to act selflessly and thus the best concept is one that utilizes greed.
And yet somehow, Americans are still able to find jobs, so much so that were were told until recently that we needed illegals in this country lest jobs not be filled by Americans who didn’t want to do them. Which is it? Are greedy corporations taking jobs from Americans, or do we not have enough Americans to fill the jobs we currently have available?
We’ve jumped to 7% unemployment, which is horrible by our standards but still leaps above some of the governments you’d want us to emulate.
Maybe because not all of us can afford to buy arugula, Death. Again, we’re talking about this in the context of people who are losing their jobs left and right and people who simply have to take pay cuts.
It’s extremely unrealistic to expect us to be able to further sacrifice at this time, and spending beyond what Americans could afford is a major reason we’re in this mess to begin with.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Obama is just trying to protect U.S unions.
He wants to raise the costs of doing manufacturing overseas.
albill on January 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Liberals don’t care about foreign workers. Their protectionism is all about the unions.
CP on January 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I feel comforted.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Why is it that the only way you can converse with anyone on this blog is to make a strawman out of their argument, it’s so lame and demonstrates you really don’t have a grasp on the issues. And, as usual, you’re wrong. If you read my posts you’ll know that my main gripe is that somewhere along the line 5% growth in profit became a “bad” year for a corporation. Wha? Why? How? and most importantl WTF?!? 5% growth in profit is a failure and warrants a lack of stock market investment. Bullcrap. But this has been accepted as “the free market” system and corporate profit lines have become so inordinate we’re willing to believe that its totally patriotic to fire Americans and hire people in other countries.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Got a call from a dear friend of mine yesterday………
……….. after twelve years in commercial real estate, he just got laid off too.
That makes six college educated, professional, middle aged family men that I personally know who have lost their jobs since December, including myself.
I told him that in my recent search, many companies are keeping their options open…………..
………. but there is definitely “wait and see” atmosphere in the hiring departments.
Since no “bail out” jobs are going to white males…….
………… things are looking a little bleak.
Good thing I invested in the stock market………
Seven Percent Solution on January 23, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Dude- how many WWII middle class people had individual bedrooms for each child (in a home they owned), at least 1 car, spent less than 2x current percentage of income on food, had electricity, indoor plumbing… do I need to go on?
cs89 on January 23, 2009 at 12:02 PM
That explains the Kuwaiti and Iraqi wars, we wanted their citizens for our sweat shops.
One of these days I’m going to find a liberal who can think beyond cheap slogans.
Today is not that day.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:04 PM
I don’t disagree about the world economy. However, this world economy of yours is in collapse whether or not you admit it. There is nothing shrouded in patriotism here. It is out in the open and above board. We need to protect US Jobs. It is unpatriotic to put other nations welfare ahead of the US. That is why they call standing up for your country patriotism. If you don’t support the USA you are unpatriotic unless you are a foreign national.
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM
And like I said, I can’t argue with you without sounding unpatriotic. Foreign labor is cheap and that’s their competitive advantage in the world, that said, work goes overseas and American wages come down as wages move toward equilibrium. This, I know. Probably better than you.
Certainly I don’t want my job moving overseas, but hey, at least I can come to grips with the world and I’ll do my best to create my niche here and to work within the global economy. Protectionism has never worked – were we rich in the 1930s? No? Well we certainly had the highest wages of any country in the world and we had no imports moving in and no exports going out because we blocked foreign goods in order to promote “American business” bring the nation out of depression.
fiscallyconservative on January 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Are you under the impression that simply asking nicely will make a difference?
Again, you want it both ways here. You want to believe they’re really good people, or at least can be if asked nicely, but you also believe they’re exploitative evil incarnate.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Not a foreign national, thankfully. Just American – and realistic. What hurts America hurts the world and what hurts the world hurts America; American business is everywhere… that’s just how it is.
fiscallyconservative on January 23, 2009 at 12:07 PM
I’m not sure where you are getting your propaganda from, but you view does not match reality.
Free trade always benefits Americans. Even if we are the only ones engaging in it.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Very well-stated. Kudos.
fiscallyconservative on January 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Yes, if these companies hired Americas they’d have to accept a cut in their profit margin,
To what point, break even? Then what happens next year when the price for needed commodities rises, take a loss or raise costs for the finished product?
Might as well shiite-can the stock market, all of it, because investors aren’t going to look for profit opportunities in companies looking only to break even. Then of course without investor capital, new businesses won’t start, established business can’t expand and….
Aw hell, lets just call it a day and go back to a barter economy.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM
We have managed to produce low paying service jobs to replace high paying manufacturing jobs. That’s why we’re importing illegal immigrant labor, citizens would rather draw government money that work for those wages. If you wish to compare unemployment today with the 1930s then it’s important that you use the same methods, and using the 1930s method gives us a much higher unemployment. I think shadow stats lists it at 16%.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Did you even bother to READ the post before spouting off?
Just for you, I’ll quote from above…
dominigan on January 23, 2009 at 12:09 PM
I’m relatively new to this blog, but I hope to one day find in the archives evidence of folks railing against the way the Bush admin cut taxes and spents massives sums of money on two wars (often in really ridiculous way). Were you calling people socialist when liberals said “um..this is costing alot, maybe we should raise taxes?” If you were then like most of your side you lose a ton of credibility on this sudden hysteria over the defecit. For 6 years your side took a surplus and managed the set the conditions for the biggest defecits in U.S. history and now is like “but Democrats want to spend money, so now it’s bad.”
You do make a good point in regards to the produce market, seasonal agricultural labor can not sustain the kind of lifestyle most Americans have accustomed themselves too. But I disagree that people are making sacrifices in the way I’m describing. People are losing jobs and are being forced into spending less money because…they don’t have it. People are not actively making the choice that this slice of their income should be spent on a treasury bond. That’s what I mean by sacrifice. And most importantly, I haven’t seen a single person from any part of the financial system say “we made a mistake, here are the things we’re willing to do to help the economy.” What I am seeing? Banks using offshore tax havens to stuff bailout money, OUR money, and not a single finger being lifted by anyone but the Dems in congress to stop that practice. The rich got upward redistribution for the last 8 years, it really is on them to do SOMETHING besides complain about paying taxes. They certainly can’t claim they are too busy expanding American employment can they.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 12:09 PM
This evidence only exists in your imagination.
Do you go out of your way to find the most expensive gas in town? Do you go out of your way to find the most expensive grocery store? If it isn’t evil for you to buy the least expensive, why is it automatically evil for anyone else to do the same?
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:10 PM
I have a friend who works in IT. His company’s just gone through their third round of layoffs, and he’s certain he’ll be next.
Still, I work at a company that desperately needs IT people and is still growing.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM
I miss the part in David Ricardo’s theory of free trade where he informed us about dealing with foreign currencies pegged to our own, or how we deal with tariffs disguised as VATs.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 12:12 PM
China pays about 50cents an hour in wages…they provide, food, housing, clothes, education for the kids.
Most of the plants are well lit, ergonomic chairs or floor mats (helps for increase production). They work 6 days a week, and most 10 hours a day.
At the end of the year, they will have a bank account of savings larger then the average American…the real ambitious ones will, after several years, form partnerships with others and start their own business with their savings.
When you go to one of the major plants, you first notice the number of people often “camped” outside the manufacturing compound, waiting for a job opening. You are often faced with a high security fence around the perimeter of the plant to keep people out, not in.
The jobs in plants are heavily sought after, it is their way to climb the “generational” ladder of success, if not them then their children.
That is where the really good schools are, the education they so highly prize…now wouldn’t it be nice if some of our lower economic groups understood these types of sacrifices?
right2bright on January 23, 2009 at 12:12 PM
No I don’t mean that we should send them nice letters. I’d like to see Americans make a decision not to buy goods not made in America. I do that at every opportunity I have and me and my boyfriends combined income just cracks 80k before taxes, we ain’t swimming in it by any means. But we make that decision because we really believe that spending tons of money on foreign made products isn’t good for the economy. If American consumers act in coordinated ways they can have an impact. Just look at the way people who sponsor programs that the Christian right deem are immoral have reacted on threat of a consumer boycott. We can get ourselves organized to complain if two guys kiss on a “family friendly show” or of Janet Jackson shows us her boobies, but getting organized around supporting businesses who employ Americans isn’t important? I honestly do not get our country’s value system.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Tsk, tsk. Must have hit close to home.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Here’s an idea, why not grow an organic garden or join a local food co-op? I have friends who like this style of living – you can just tell yourself that there’s nothing more American than a victory garden!
fiscallyconservative on January 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM
But no one’s ever ASKED the management class to be patriotic in the last 50 years.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Oh bullshiite. I’m part of that “management class” and I’m not poor but I’m not rolling in hundos either.
You get what you pay for in “management class” people, and more often than not they will make the difference between success and failure. I’m not going to have the kid who I employ as a gofer do the accounting, I leave that to the guy who is experienced in that field.
I’m also not going to appoint a shop supervisor who hasn’t first been blooded on the shop floor as a worker bee.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Man, do you love to display your ignorance.
1) Wealth concentration was higher back then.
2) Today’s standard of living, even with the minor blip we are experiencing now, is way higher than immediately after the war.
Try studying a little bit before whining about how bad you have it.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Last month, Kristof had a NYT column in which he essentially bitch-slapped liberals into the reality that conservatives donate more time and money to worthy causes. As I recall, he even countered the pat liberal response that conservatives merely contribute to finance the bricks and mortar of religious organiztions with two points. First, that many of these religious organizations take the donations and accomplish good works. Second, a significant part of liberal charitable giving is to “the arts,” which does little, if anything, to help the less fortunate.
All in all, I can stomach that kind of honesty from a liberal.
BuckeyeSam on January 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM
No you didn’t hit close to home. You hit close to those asses who think everyone who has a different opinion on a subject are somehow liberal plants.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Just a simple question…with I think a simple answer.
Who authorizes to spend the money in the U.S….congress or the president?
right2bright on January 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM
God forbid that a company actually make a profit.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Just how does making American consumers spend more, equate to patriotism?
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM
MarkTheGreat, I like you. The ignorance of basic Economic principles in the American public is embarrassing.
fiscallyconservative on January 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM
I’d like to see Americans make a decision not to buy goods not made in America. I do that at every opportunity
Goods made in America, raw materials mined in Africa using shovels made in the Ukraine, shipped on Liberian freighters crewed by Filipinos, pre-assembled in Thailand by immigrant Cambodian workers, offloaded in Baltimore harbor by green-card Mexicans and finally…a single stitch used to attach the tag which now qualifies it for the “Made in America” label.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Fair enough but actually, I just want to compare our stats to other countries in the same time period. Otherwise, there are many other variables.
No, and if you do look back, you’ll find that the spending Bush has done is one of the reasons even Republicans have soured on him. That said, I didn’t want taxes raise either. I would have much preferred it if he’d just cut spending, specifically pork, something you’ll see referenced frequently if you ever do look back.
I got that, but if they don’t have the money, how can they be expected to do that? Plus, just on a practical level, I doubt many people even know how. We’re talking about a population where only 20% or so even vote in a presidential election.
Yeah, and I’m not seeing a single politician do that either. Instead, they’re promoting people like that into positions of power and/or cutting them checks (specifically those who donated to their campaigns), giving money to the same people who messed up in the first place.
To be fair (taking your statement at face value out of laziness), many of them had a hand in creating this problem, one that Bush specifically tried repeatedly to put a stop to even as Frank and others were trying to protect their contributors.
Also, with the government rewarding failure with these bailouts, what incentive do these people have in doing anything? Again, do you just think their Grinch heart has been melting with wads and wads of government cash, even though you just admitted that they’re slimy enough to try to hide bailout money?
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM
That would be Congress, which the GOP controlled up through 2006 and wherein the GOP saddled the nation with two wars that could not be magically unfunded in 2006. You guys are stunning. You actually expect anyone to not attribute the defecit to anything but decisions made since 2006? No one is that stupid.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Wealth may have been more concentrated then, but I’m concerned about the middle class. You use standard of living instead of inflation adjusted wage as your standard, but you don’t account for two income families vs. single income families in your analysis. We have a higher standard of living, but are requiring two breadwinners to achieve it.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Is there no ignorant shiboleth you aren’t willing to trot out?
You probably believe that service jobs are limited to burger flippers.
Inclusively, service jobs pay more than factory jobs. Which is why when you include the cost of benefits, salaries have been climbing steadily.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:23 PM
How’s Detroit’s auto industry doing? Those union contracts really help out, don’t they? Labor pools are subject the to same laws of supply and demand as any other commodity. I suppose that’s why card check is so important.
a capella on January 23, 2009 at 12:23 PM
“The road to hell is paved over the bodies of those with good intentions.” Enough said.
DL13 on January 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Your ability to ignore what is in front of you is indeed impressive.
1) Bush’s tax cuts raised more money then they cost.
2) I notice that you ignore the much bigger increase in social spending, in order to complain about the cost of wars which were necessary.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM
God forbid that a company actually make a profit.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Terrible.
I mean look what that money-grubbing ahole Bill Gates did with his enormous profits from Microsoft; started a billion dollar a year philanthropic fund which bankrolls a myriad of social enterprises and doesn’t seek an ounce of publicity for it.
Just another money whore, as Hack said earlier, “God, rich people are such whiners.”
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM
So do I. As Boortz says, the 40 hour work week is for people who don’t want to better themselves.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:27 PM
We agree, I’ve almost gotten in fights with my family over the appointment of all these Ruben proteges to positions of power. But here’s the deal if those folks actually make moves that will correct these issues will conservatives support it even if it means sacrifice? Or will they drag their feet for purely ideological reasons. If you really think the things you described in your post are wrong, I’m not sure how you can support either part as they are both corporately owned. Join us in the Greens!
And also to be fair, Democrats did NOT insist on those kinds of provisions for TARP 1 (lord knows why) and then Paulson just made this massive change in tax policy which those House Dems (presumably) are trying to undo now. I’m as optimistic about that being a part of Tarp II as you are.
Bailout money sans major regulation and controls is a bad idea, I think we agree on that.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 23, 2009 at 12:27 PM
You might want to study up on the concept of comparative advantage.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »