|
Post by gillianren on May 31, 2007 5:25:13 GMT -4
If you are the Chinese laborer, it's possible that you have only two options- either become a work slave, or starve to death. Nothing to live for, just to live. You mean "wage slave." And suppose that company paid its workers $5 instead of $1. It's still vastly cheaper than in the US, but the family (in China, that's generally three people) is now at a much higher standard of living than someone in a richer country earning that same $5. It depends on how you define "poverty," naturally. In my opinion, the short answer is "unions" and the long answer is "unions and governmental regulation." However, there have been quite a lot of factors influencing wealth for thousands of years. One of the times of greatest prosperity in European history was in the 14th Century, after the Black Death wiped out perhaps 2/3 of the European population. (Or perhaps closer to 1/3.) There were fewer people available to do the same work and take up the same land, and wages skyrocketed--then stayed relatively stationary for some two hundred years, while the population built back up.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on May 31, 2007 23:55:14 GMT -4
The second point is that, at least in Australia, we have close to full employment, and manufacturing jobs lost here mean employees are available for other jobs in search of people to fill them. www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=8025"The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union’s analysis of a potential free trade agreement between Australia and China predicts around 170,000 job losses in manufacturing if the agreement goes ahead. ....National secretary of the AMWU, Doug Cameron says the experience of the previous free trade agreements shows that the economic models used to argue that bilateral trade agreements deliver benefits to Australia are flawed. "A free trade agreement with China would put at risk entire sectors of Australia’s manufacturing industries, which would only be partly off set by limited new employment in agriculture and mining."
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 1, 2007 8:04:47 GMT -4
Turbonium see if you can provide any citations indicating that wages paid to Chinese employees of multinationals is so low compared to the cost of living. Please explain to us why you think they would be better off without those jobs. I Brazil at least most people who can get a job that’s not off the books considers themselves lucky because they are guaranteed benefits like social security, paid vacation, sick leave, unemployment insurance etc. People who can get such jobs with multinationals consider themselves doubly lucky because pay, benefits and working conditions normally are better than with domestic companies. I’d also like to see documentation for your claim that first world countries export agricultural products to developing nations: “I assumed you meant First World farmers were subsidized to undercut Third World imports specifically for cheaper locally grown foods, sold domestically (in that First World country)
That's why I pointed out the First World exporting the same foods en masse into the Third World. So, you meant the same sort of thing in your example?”
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 1, 2007 8:20:58 GMT -4
The second point is that, at least in Australia, we have close to full employment, and manufacturing jobs lost here mean employees are available for other jobs in search of people to fill them. www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=8025"The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union’s analysis of a potential free trade agreement between Australia and China predicts around 170,000 job losses in manufacturing if the agreement goes ahead. ....National secretary of the AMWU, Doug Cameron says the experience of the previous free trade agreements shows that the economic models used to argue that bilateral trade agreements deliver benefits to Australia are flawed. "A free trade agreement with China would put at risk entire sectors of Australia’s manufacturing industries, which would only be partly off set by limited new employment in agriculture and mining." I like to see how they arrived at such a figure. Obviously it is in the interest of the union to make the proposed agreement that they feel would threaten their member’s jobs as bad as possible. Gains by other sectors of the economy wouldn’t benefit them. Just how big is Australia’s manufacturing sector anyway? Of course jobs lost in Australia would mean jobs gained in China. Since labor costs are lower and equipment often more expensive I would expect manufacturing in poor countries like China to be less automated and more labor intensive and thus one job lost in Australia probably equals more than one job gained in China. Lowering the cost of goods in a country allows its residents to spend more money on other things which would tend to increase employment. You guys have to make up your mind is globalization bad because it? 1) Is detrimental to the economies of developed countries at the expense of developing ones or 2) Is detrimental to the economies of developing countries at the expense of developed ones
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 1, 2007 15:34:58 GMT -4
1) Is detrimental to the economies of developed countries at the expense of developing ones or 2) Is detrimental to the economies of developing countries at the expense of developed ones The answer is obviously 1) Is detrimental to the economies of developed countries at the expense of developing ones
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on Jun 2, 2007 19:54:15 GMT -4
The way you've written the two cases, both say that globalization is bad for both developed and developing countries. I don't think that's what you meant to say, but unless you rewrite them it's impossible to choose one because they both say the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 3, 2007 2:51:37 GMT -4
The way you've written the two cases, both say that globalization is bad for both developed and developing countries. I don't think that's what you meant to say, but unless you rewrite them it's impossible to choose one because they both say the same thing. Is this adressed to Lenbrazil? I effectively noted something "confusing" in his text but my bad English notions make me fall in the trap...if it was intentionally a trap. But when observed objectively the Globalisation can make negative effects in both cases. Example. FTA hurting Thai farmers 11-June-2006 A recent study led by Thammasat University academic Rangsan Thanapornpan claims that the Australia-Thailand free trade agreement has benefited only a small group of industrialists, while people in the agricultural sector have been adversely affected.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 4, 2007 9:01:42 GMT -4
The way you've written the two cases, both say that globalization is bad for both developed and developing countries. I don't think that's what you meant to say, but unless you rewrite them it's impossible to choose one because they both say the same thing. Is this adressed to Lenbrazil? I effectively noted something "confusing" in his text but my bad English notions make me fall in the trap...if it was intentionally a trap. OOOPs I meant You guys have to make up your mind is globalization bad because it? 1) Is detrimental to the economies of developed countries to the benefit of developing ones or 2) Is detrimental to the economies of developing countries to the benefit of developed ones. From the editorial you cited “The study says Thailand enjoyed a trade surplus with Australia during 1998-2004. In 2005, the year the FTA was first enforced, Thailand had a trade deficit with Australia worth 3,199 million baht.” I.E. the FTA had a positive effect on Australia’s balance of trade with Thailand. “In 2005, imports of milk and dairy products from Australia increased by 57%. Beef imports also increased because the tariff was reduced from 51 to 40%. Thai dairy farmers and cattle raisers were directly affected” I.E. the FTA was bad for Thai farmers according to author but presumably beef and dairy prices went down for Thai consumers and the FTA was good for Australian farmers. Thai consumers now had more money to spend on other goods and services. “Although the volume of Thai exports to Australia grew by 28.5% in 2005 because of tariff reductions, Thai goods are now less competitive because Australia expanded its FTAs with other countries.” I.E. people working for companies making those goods benefited, as did Australian consumers. Australian consumers then had more money to buy other goods and services.Perhaps the solution for Thailand is to enter into FTA’s with other countries. www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=4935See if you can get back to us with something actually written by an economist.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 4, 2007 23:28:29 GMT -4
From the article it is said about Thailand in conclusion that: The government should look at ways to correct the problems emanating from the FTA with Australia, or even with China. It is not right to let a small group of people benefit, while the majority suffers from the effects of free trade agreements.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 5, 2007 0:01:46 GMT -4
I.E. the FTA had a positive effect on Australia’s balance of trade with Thailand. “In 2005, imports of milk and dairy products from Australia increased by 57%. Beef imports also increased because the tariff was reduced from 51 to 40%. Thai dairy farmers and cattle raisers were directly affected” See if you can get back to us with something actually written by an economist. OK let see a projection for the future Australian free trade agreement with China. see the pdf report written by an economist www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=8025"Our analysis shows that based on actual experience, the net flow of jobs out of Australia as a result of a free trade agreement with China would be in the vicinity of 158,000. "A free trade agreement with China would put at risk entire sectors of Australia’s manufacturing industries, which would only be partly off set by limited new employment in agriculture and mining."I want to hear Peter B comments about salary paid for working on farms compare to manufacturing industries? www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=8025
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 5, 2007 9:13:55 GMT -4
See if you can get back to us with something actually written by an economist. OK let see a projection for the future Australian free trade agreement with China. see the pdf report written by an economist www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=8025"Our analysis shows that based on actual experience, the net flow of jobs out of Australia as a result of a free trade agreement with China would be in the vicinity of 158,000. "A free trade agreement with China would put at risk entire sectors of Australia’s manufacturing industries, which would only be partly off set by limited new employment in agriculture and mining."I want to hear Peter B comments about salary paid for working on farms compare to manufacturing industries? www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=8025OK I’ll move the goal posts a bit. See if you can find a paper not written on behalf of a special interest group (Australian industrial unions) and/or nor written by an economist employed by a special interest group (the Canadian Auto Workers union). I’m generally pro-union but they aren’t exactly objective disinterested 3rd parties when questions such as these arise. I’m sure to make an analogy I could find a paper written by a scientist working for the nuclear power lobby stating that storage of nuclear waste is no big deal.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 5, 2007 9:20:17 GMT -4
From the article it is said about Thailand in conclusion that: The government should look at ways to correct the problems emanating from the FTA with Australia, or even with China. It is not right to let a small group of people benefit, while the majority suffers from the effects of free trade agreements.Actually it was an editorial not an article. I was more interested in the data presented than the conclusion reached because the the former (the data) didn't seem to support the latter (the conclusion).
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 5, 2007 15:39:10 GMT -4
From the article it is said about Thailand in conclusion that: The government should look at ways to correct the problems emanating from the FTA with Australia, or even with China. It is not right to let a small group of people benefit, while the majority suffers from the effects of free trade agreements.Actually it was an editorial not an article. I was more interested in the data presented than the conclusion reached because the the former (the data) didn't seem to support the latter (the conclusion). Read objectively the -editorial- about Thailand www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=4935It say clearly that only a small group of industrialists benifits the free trade agreement. See if you can find a paper not written on behalf of a special interest group If the economists work for the Government they are also working for a special group of interest. Here an example for the USA showing that the datas are tweaked by the economists working for the US Government which try to dissimulate the effects of the free trade agreements on the US economy. www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=786
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 5, 2007 22:59:37 GMT -4
Turbonium see if you can provide any citations indicating that wages paid to Chinese employees of multinationals is so low compared to the cost of living. Since a standard 40 hour work-week doesn't exist for common laborers in virtually all third world nations, a per-hour wage rate needs to be considered. So do brutal penalties for employees if they should miss a day of work (no excuse for being sick or injured), within a six day work-week, 12 hours a day. And how does child labor fit in to the equation? After browsing over a few of the many studies available online, I think I can soon find a relevant source(s) to post. Please explain to us why you think they would be better off without those jobs. Quite simply, they wouldn't be better off. As I said earlier.... If you are the Chinese laborer, it's possible that you have only two options- either become a work slave, or starve to death. I Brazil at least most people who can get a job that’s not off the books considers themselves lucky because they are guaranteed benefits like social security, paid vacation, sick leave, unemployment insurance etc. People who can get such jobs with multinationals consider themselves doubly lucky because pay, benefits and working conditions normally are better than with domestic companies. Can you provide sources for those claims, as you've asked me to provide for my claims? The issue is more complex than just surface comparisons. It may be true, that working for Nike (or other multinationals) in third world countries is better than working for a domestic business. That doesn't mean the answer to poverty is having more and more multinationals coming in to take over everything. I’d also like to see documentation for your claim that first world countries export agricultural products to developing nations: “I assumed you meant First World farmers were subsidized to undercut Third World imports specifically for cheaper locally grown foods, sold domestically (in that First World country)
That's why I pointed out the First World exporting the same foods en masse into the Third World. So, you meant the same sort of thing in your example?” Again, a quick browse finds many such articles. I'll post on it soon. Btw, I still don't know if this was also part of what peter meant when he mentioned subsidies.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 6, 2007 12:52:54 GMT -4
Actually it was an editorial not an article. I was more interested in the data presented than the conclusion reached because the the former (the data) didn't seem to support the latter (the conclusion). Read objectively the -editorial- about Thailand www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=4935It say clearly that only a small group of industrialists benifits the free trade agreement. Yes I know they concluded that but like I said the limited data provided did seem to back their conclusion. Thai cattle farmers and their employees were worse off but Thai consumers, factory owners and employees were better off. Port workers and others involved in the import/export business presumably were better off as were the owners and employees of businesses where Thais spent the money freed up by cheaper meat and dairy products. See if you can find a paper not written on behalf of a special interest group If the economists work for the Government they are also working for a special group of interest.[/quote] In theory at least they are working on behalf of the citizens of there country. What I had more i mind was academic economist working for universities [/quote] Wow a long article on an obscure website by an obscure author who doesn't cite his sources. Try and cite specific passages and see if you can provide independent confirmation of his statistics
|
|