Should developed nations refuse to take exports from LDCs that have weak labour laws?

[Solly]

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?

[Gangerolf]

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.

[Az]

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

[BeBMan]

Re: Should developed nations refuse to take exports from LDCs that have weak labour laws?

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.

[Solly]

"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.

[DAVOUT]

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.

[Whaleboy]

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

[DAVOUT]

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.

[loinburger]

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.

[Vandal-1]

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.

[Shi Huangdi]

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.

[Urban Ranger]

BD,

The following quote should answer your question quite nicely.

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.

[Edan]

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.

[Vandal-1]

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.

[Shi Huangdi]

"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.