Corporations leave the west at an amazing pace. Atleast there hiring does...

[Sava]

[KrazyHorse]

Ned, the solid-state revolution was only 30 years old in 1980. Now it's 50 years old and is finally coming of age. Parts are cheaper, the labour that's used to put them together is cheaper (not due to offshore production) and the TVs themselves are simpler from a manufacturing point of view. What used to be a mess of circuit boards and inductors is now a couple of cheap microprocessors...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Capitalism works for the rich... that's about it. I wonder why people think that the socio-economic conditions in America are vastly superior than the rest of the world. Some people watch too much TV I guess...

Imagine this is Europa Universalis. There's a slider bar for Communism --- Capitalism. USSR on the left, the USA on the right... somewhere in the middle is where we ought to be. Sure, people consider me a leftist, but that's only because everyone else is so far to the right. I want an economy/system that provides health care, education, and ample job/career opprotunities for its people while ensuring health competition and free markets for consumer goods. It's not unreasonable, it's not a pipe-dream, and it just requires a little compromise.

Does absolute Communism work? No
Does absolute Capitalism work? No
Can there be a gray area that ensures the type of dream I described? Yes

But it's just easier to argue with one another instead of working together to improve things.

Sava, there is very little to disagree with here. The social safety net is important to take the rough edges off of capitalism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You seem to be operating under the assumption that it is wrong to believe and advocate tat people have the right to make a living wage and not live in industrial filth. If people who believed what you say had their way, there'd only be a Third World.

Che, the example given in the article and most examples that I know of suggest that the wages Western companies pay in the Third World are "princely." No one is suggesting that Western companies are hiring below the poverty line. Quite the opposite.

As to environment - well the companies are gone from the US - so the US environment improves. Have you been to Pittsburgh recently. No more steel mills at all. Vanished. They were shut down and never rebuilt.

But, we are not talking here solely about living in filth vs. living in a absolutely pure enviroment. I have seen too many environmentalist drop by my house asking me to sign a petition on some enviromental initiative who proudly proclaim that they stopped the building of this refinery or that power plant or this chemical plant. What am I to think about this? They stopped the building of the plants even though they would comply with environmental regulaitons.

The enviromental left are extremists who care little about the environment and more about damaging business. Well, they succeeded, in large measure, and have driven certain kinds of business completely out of the United States.

And now the anti-globalists, composed mainly of environmentalists, appear and complain. They say the corporations are unfairly moving jobs to the Third World to avoid US environmental laws. Duh!

Che, business work on the bottom line. They produce products and services at the lowest cost - or else their competitor kills them. As the unions and the environmentalist added costs to American manufacturing, business reacted to reduce costs. First they moved to the South. Now they move to South Asia. What in the world did you expect?

[Ned]

Originally posted by DuncanK
.

So typical of the right wing. You say that capitalism works better because of the success the Imperialists have had at preventing third world countries from being successfull using Communism. In the same way (and I'm not saying this is you in particular) you assume that white males are superior to minorities. The capitalist nations have had every advantage just as white males have had in America. Furthermore the Imperialist nations have been hostile towards weaker Communist nations just as many white males are hostile towards minorities in industrialized nations. Just because white males have prospered more in our societies doesn't mean that they are superior and just because Imperialist nations have been successfull at exploiting third world societies and determining their outcomes doesn't mean that their ideology is superior. It only means that they have had every advantage. They have had all the resources and all the technology. Third world nations declare war on every idustrialized nation in the world when they become Communist. How can you rate the benefits of Communism just because of recent history?

I'm sorry Duncan, but resorting to global theories to explain day to day decisions by individual businessmen won't cut it. When such a businessman decides to invest in a particular country, he or she is looking for a number of things: including political stability, infrastructure, a convertible currency, a relatively well educated workforce, low taxes, favorable environmental, workplace and other laws that impose costs, etc. etc. etc. If everything works out, the investment is made.

If a third world country, communist or not, is hostile to business, has little or nor infrastructure, has no convertible currency, has an uneducated or lazy workforce, has extreme envirnomental or other laws that impose excessive cost, or anything else worthy of note, such as lack of intellectual property protection, the investment will not be made. You will be surprised that businessmen will factor everything into account and will make an investment even in communist countries if it makes business sense. Look at China, for example of massive Western investments.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, the example given in the article and most examples that I know of suggest that the wages Western companies pay in the Third World are "princely." No one is suggesting that Western companies are hiring below the poverty line. Quite the opposite.

You are off in your own world, Neddie. $5.15 an hour is indeed a princely sum in India, where many of our call center jobs are going. It's not as if people working at call centers make some tall cash or even enough money to have much of a life on, but now even this is denied them?

As to environment - well the companies are gone from the US - so the US environment improves. Have you been to Pittsburgh recently. No more steel mills at all. Vanished. They were shut down and never rebuilt.

The steel mills shutting down had nothing to do with the environment. It was because steel companies got arrogant and didn't modernize, just like the car companies, and they got their asses kicked. One steel pipe making factory in Birhmingham, AL, profiled on a recent Frontline, ACIPCO, follows environmental regulations, pays its employees a decent wage, ensures a safe work place, and still makes a profit. Obviously, labor costs and regulations aren't the problems.

You expect First World workers to accept Thrid World wages, to live in ****holes like Tiajuana, Mexico, because that's what you're trying to sell. Workers have a right to decent pay at decent conditions without having the company pour its filth into their communities. It doesn't matter what part of the world you live in. Companies go abroad because they can find corrupt governments who will kill people who get in the way of business screwing over the little guy. It's sick that you stand up for them.

[KrazyHorse]

Chegitz, that frontline piece was done in conjunction with a cbc show (think it was "The Fifth Estate") and washington post (?)

That was an interesting example of cross-border cooperation to go after a cross-border crook (MacWane)...

[chequita guevara]

That is one evil company, founded solely because MacWayne felt the other company was too nice to its employees.

[KrazyHorse]

That one got to me too.

Up here they stressed anticompetitive business practices engaged in by MacWayne in locking up the Canadian market (90%)

[Lawrence of Arabia]

When companies move into Third World countries, the price of labor goes up, not down. If they werent there, wages would be much lower

And Ned, don't generalize. I'm on the left, but I'm pro globalisation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
When companies move into Third World countries, the price of labor goes up, not down. If they werent there, wages would be much lower

In the First World, however, it acts as a downward pressure on wages within industries that are locating abroad. Garment workers make **** wages in this country. They make **** wages abroad and have to work in sweat shops to boot.

Abroad it depends on the company. For example, workers in Mexican autoplants do quite well, considering. On the other hand, many maquiladora workers live in what can be called shacks only if you are being generous. Very often, companies that relocate fail to pay even the local minimum wage. Since they have bribed the government, there's little workers can do about it but organize, and that has a tendency to get people dead.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Well then it's not the US government or the corporations fault. Its the fault of the institutions of the host third world country.
If garment workers make so little money then they should unionize.
You gotta remember, that corporations are like beasts. If you don't reign them in, you will get catastrophic results. However, its up to the governments/ employees to held reign them in.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

And yeah, there would be downward pressure on wages in the 1st world country - until the wages in third world countries increase, in which case they will import more goods from the 1st world countries, which will imake more profits for the companies, who will hire more, and which will help the economy.

It's a win win situation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Well then it's not the US government or the corporations fault. Its the fault of the institutions of the host third world country.

It's still all part of anti-democratic nature of capitalist globalization.

If garment workers make so little money then they should unionize.

And when they try, you get people like Ned acting as apologists for the industry when it closes down union shops and runs for the border. That's part of the effect of globalization, making people afraid to fight for their rights for fear they'll lose even the crumbs that they have.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No they arn't anti-democratic. Corporations try every single way to try to squeeze their costs and maximize their profits. If they didn't attempt to do that, then goods would be way overpriced.

If they go to a country where corruption is rampant, then it is up to the government of that country to protect its people. The corporations is merely trying to get an edge on its competitors.

And if the garment industry closes down because the costs is too high, well then tough luck - the country has outgrown the production of garments and those people should get a different job. We arn't about to put up tariffs to protect a very tiny percentage of the population, because this will cost the other 99% hundreds of thousands of dollars.