Myths of our time: globalisation

[Az]

Conservatives eat babies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

wages will be much lower, and most other costs depend on local wages as well. Of course, you people think that enviromental regulation, and basic workers' rights are worthless, so I guess my point is lost there. If you're trying to tell me that the factories in the 3rd world will stop being profitable due to enviromental regulations and the unheard of ability of people to organize, I am sorry, but that's hillarious.

Why is that hilarious? What if the infrastructure of the country is subpar, what do you think further environmental and labor regulations at this time will do? It'll make the factories less profitable and then those companies will simply go to countries with better infrastructure and screw those third world countries.

Environmental and labor regulations increase as the populace increases in wealth because of their becoming more skilled workers. They need foreign companies to get that way, and those companies will only come if they find it is chearper to go there. Simply look at the history of every industrialized country.

So have a basic standard of environmental and labor laws and companies will simply leave the poorer countries and go to those with better infrastructure.

Of course those in the poor countries will lose their relatively great job. Good job the standard do.

Come on, you know what they mean. We need to do more to address poverty and that includes giving a lot more to poor countries, debt relief.

No, I don't know what they mean. I hear plenty of morons who say that there should be a global minimum wage of $5/hr and the same benefits American workers get. They don't realize that's going to destroy the economies of third world countries when the companies leave en masse (no reason for them to be there anymore)... but as long as it ain't white people suffering, it's ok, right?

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Azazel
This isn't entirely correct, Shogun Gunner. Historically, there were many times when global trade fell. Like WWI, and afterwards, IIRC.

I don't mean trade. Interaction. With transportation and communication advances nothing short of a world wide nuclear war will stop the trend for people around the world to meet, interaction and talk. This brings trade, science exchagne, etc. This breaking down of traditional barriers is what I thought most people identified globalization with.

[Az]

Why is that hilarious? What if the infrastructure of the country is subpar, what do you think further environmental and labor regulations at this time will do? It'll make the factories less profitable and then those companies will simply go to countries with better infrastructure and screw those third world countries.

well, if you're allowed to speculate, so am I :

Then, when lots of factories will move to the countries with better infrastructure, those will able to demand better wages, as well as afford better education, and other jobs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

when lots of factories will move to the countries with better infrastructure, those will able to demand better wages, as well as afford better education, and other jobs.

What about those countries that the companies have left from? Are they always doomed to poverty? The ones with better infrastructure were on the right path anyway. The ones without need the help. Company factories will force a better infrastructure and eventually allow a more educated and skilled workforce... which will, of course, result in higher wages and better environmental laws you want.

Like I said, the pattern of every industrialization in history. First there are no labor or environmental laws, but as the populace becomes more skilled (a middle class develops), they demand these things and get them through the political process.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Like I said, the pattern of every industrialization in history. First there are no labor or environmental laws, but as the populace becomes more skilled (a middle class develops), they demand these things and get them through the political process.

exactly.

[Az]

What about those countries that the companies have left from? Are they always doomed to poverty? The ones with better infrastructure were on the right path anyway.

They'll get the unskilled labor that left from the ones that got a little better. Hell, Why should I explain that to you. You people seems to be the ones that claim that all the time.

The ones without need the help. Company factories will force a better infrastructure and eventually allow a more educated and skilled workforce... which will, of course, result in higher wages and better environmental laws you want.
[/q]
will they? Hell, these regulations are a constant struggle even in 1st world countries, you and I both know it. In 3rd world countries, or even middle of the road countries, the situation is crap.

[Imran Siddiqui]

these regulations are a constant struggle even in 1st world countries, you and I both know it. In 3rd world countries, or even middle of the road countries, the situation is crap.

A reading of history will help here. Look at the US, for example. Sweatshops abounded when industrialization began. Within 50 years, there were basic labor protections. Within 100 years, there were environmental laws. As a middle class grows, change develops. It ain't easy, but it's happned everywhere else.

They'll get the unskilled labor that left from the ones that got a little better.

Only if the labor and environmental protections are that low that any country with any infrastructure at all will be above them. If the standards are high, companies will simply stay in the middle-tier countries until their standard go noticably higher than the international standard (ie, right at the level) and then maybe the companies will go to the utterly poor countries. Or maybe they'll go for another middle-tier country who's standards are not yet higher than the standard

[Az]

A reading of history will help here. Look at the US, for example. Sweatshops abounded when industrialization began. Within 50 years, there were basic labor protections. Within 100 years, there were environmental laws. As a middle class grows, change develops. It ain't easy, but it's happned everywhere else.

Look at china. first there were sweatshop. now there are electronic factories. enviromental laws? labor protections?

Only if the labor and environmental protections are that low that any country with any infrastructure at all will be above them. If the standards are high, companies will simply stay in the middle-tier countries until their standard go noticably higher than the international standard (ie, right at the level) and then maybe the companies will go to the utterly poor countries. Or maybe they'll go for another middle-tier country who's standards are not yet higher than the standard

That would be so, if you'd have countries that are 3rd world with good infrastructure, if you leave out geography, etc. etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Look at china. first there were sweatshop. now there are electronic factories. enviromental laws? labor protections?

China also doesn't have much of a political process. And wouldn't respond to a 'manditory' environmental or labor law.

Most of the industrialization that has occured as been in democratic countries.

However, even in China, a middle class is developing that is attempting to initiate change. Labor protections are much better today than they were in 50.

if you'd have countries that are 3rd world with good infrastructure, if you leave out geography, etc. etc.

There are 3rd world countries with better infrastructure than other 3rd would countries. Not every one of them has the same level. And geography doesn't matter so much in this era of easy and quick shipping.

[Az]

China also doesn't have much of a political process. And wouldn't respond to a 'manditory' environmental or labor law.

Most of the industrialization that has occured as been in democratic countries.

This is rather arguable.

However, even in China, a middle class is developing that is attempting to initiate change. Labor protections are much better today than they were in 50.

One can surely hope so.

There are 3rd world countries with better infrastructure than other 3rd would countries. Not every one of them has the same level. And geography doesn't matter so much in this era of easy and quick shipping.

Surely, they aren't all the same. But the differences aren't that big. If a country can afford a decent transporatition and utility system, it's on it's way, and would be able to support a good education system, to make some more advanced stuff, as well.

Those differences are similar to the differences in shipping prices, etc. (though shipping is very cheap, these days. )

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the differences aren't that big. If a country can afford a decent transporatition and utility system, it's on it's way, and would be able to support a good education system, to make some more advanced stuff, as well.

They are big enough differences to cost the company much less if they were in one country as compared to another.

After all, the Phillipines has a much better infrastructure than, say, Madagascar... that doesn't mean the Phillipines isn't a developing country.

[Chemical Ollie]

Re: Myths of our time: globalisation

Originally posted by Oerdin
... Protesters had claimed that globalisation would force everyone to be "Coca-Colonized" and that locally made products would be driven out of business by rapaging multinational corporations...

Sweden is perhaps the only country where Coca-Cola sales are going DOWN during Christmas time because of the strong Swedish tradition to drink root beer during Christmas and Eastern. Coca-Cola hates this tendency and tries to counter by increased advertising: "- Coca-Cola is a must for Christmas", not knowing that "must" is the Swedish word for root beer.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Azazel
Globalization should also have globalized enviromental standards, and globalized labour standards. This doesn't mean that wages must be the same, but that people should enjoy the same freedoms, and the we all won't be screwed over via the enviroment.

This is what Howard Dean preaches. So what is he going to do? Stop investment in third world countries, stop buying their products, until they install environmental laws and labor standards equal to the US standards? How is this going to help the third world to develop? It will not as that is not Howard Dean's intention, now is it?

BTW, since Enron, the US has increased corporate responsibilty laws and regulations, among them, asking CEO's to certify personally the accuracy of their financial statements. The ever-so-pure Europeans are resisting - even going so far as to close up shop in the United States in order to avoid publishing accurate and reliable financial statements. They, of course, contend that they, the Europeans, do not need such stringent regulations because as everyone knows, greed is an American problem, not a European problem, and besides, the Europeans do not have the equivalent of the Republican Party.

Well, the collapse of Parmalat illustrates just why the European fat cats and their government payoff partners are resisting adopting American standards of honesty, does it not?

[JohnT]

BTW, since Enron, the US has increased corporate responsibilty laws and regulations, among them, asking CEO's to certify personally the accuracy of their financial statements.

Not just certify, but to do so knowing that they can land in jail for signing off on misleading figures.

Interesting tidbit about the European companies, but I gotta ask... cite?