Protecting People and Jobs

I'm not usually one to start a topic, but with the recent topics revolving around the global economy and such, I thought this would be a good time to try this idea out. For a few years now, I've had an idea I thought would be beneficial for the US (and other industrial nations grappling with outsourcing) as well as the people living in the countries our outsourced jobs go.If the US (and other first world nations) passed laws requiring any company that wants to do business in America to conform to US labor laws (i.e. 40 hour work week, minimum wage, worker safety, etc) or they lose the right to do business in America (or whatever country), it would decrease the incentive to outsource a job for cheaper labor, and for the companies for which outsourcing was beneficial for other reasons, it would also increase the wages and standard of lving in those other countries.Now, the obvious work-around for this is to create a shell company that does the overseas work, then "sells" it to the companies doing business in the first world. So, we could say that any company that does business in the US has to use contracotrs or suppliers that also follow these rules.Now, I'm sure there are flaws with this, beyond the possibility of an infinite regress of shell companies, and I would like to see what others think.

Yeah, that's another difficult part. I would guess there would have to be some sort of oversight board or worker protections board, but inspecting working conditions in a different country could be problematic.But, I guess it could be a little softer. For instance, we know about the working conditions and wages at Foxconn in China, and we know Apple uses them to build the iPhone, iPad, etc. Knowing that this doesn't match the US labor laws, we could stop Apple from doing business in the US until the conditions are fixed.Of course, I guess that would lead to blackmarket iPads and such.

How do you do this? If a company can do something cheaper, whether it be because of lower wages, or shorter supply chains, or just a larger labor pool in another country, what incentive do they have to stay in the US?Obama proposes tax breaks for companies that remain in the US, and that might work if the tax breaks are large enough, but the larger the tax breaks, the less money the government makes and the more they'll have to get elsewhere.He also proposes a tax on countries that produce items overseas, which might help, but does nothing to help the people that are exploited in other countries.

It might lead to inflation in those other countries, which could be problematic and would need to be loloked at, but this wasn't intended to raise wages here in America, it would merely be an incentive for companies to keep their jobs in America, as the wage difference would be largely removed.

The rule would apply to any company that wanted to do business in America. It might stifle imports, but I think the American market would be attractive enough to overcome the resistance.

The problem is, if we can educate our citizens to do them, why can't China do the same, then still have lower wages? There doesn't seem to be anything that America can do to make its workforce more appealing that China or India can't do as well.I agree that education will be a large part of the solution, but I'm pessimistic that anything can make the workforce more appealing without addressing the wage discrepancy.Also, if we're talking amnufacturing, the raw materials are often also gotten at a cheaper rate in other countries where mining safety requirements are lower. Again, something addressing working conditions would seem to be needed. Often, unfortunately, the most appealing part of a foreign-made object is its price, not so much its quality. This compounds the problems, because in an effort to make American-made products compete in the price category, companies often sacrifice the quality, leading to a "race to the bottom." The people who will effectivly resist innovations like this are Republicans who don't want the government doing anything with the "invisible hand of the free market." They'll argue that if education and innovation are beneficial, companies will do that on their own. This, of course, is insane, but they'll have enough people believing it to keep them in office. I think they're a step in the right direction. They won't solve all of the problems, but it seems to be a way to impose tariffs on "American" companies.

This would lead to an education arms race (Which would be awesome.) But you'd end up with a tide effect. The jobs would come to America, where the education is higher, then ebb back to China and India when they catch up, but have cheaper labor and resources. But just as resources aren't evenly distributed, we don't have any resources that aren't available elsewhere. As long as those other sources are cheaper, it will benefit companies to be elsewhere too. But if modest increases in quality aren't worth modest increases in price, how would a large increase in quality be worth a simialrly large increase in cost.If I can buy 100 widgets that will only last a month at the same price as a widget that will last 5 years, it's still in my best interest to buy the 100 crappy widgets. That's why I said "effectively." Phat and others with his mentality do not have any power, except with their vote. But it's the Republicans, who share their ideas or will appear to to court their votes, who would actually be able to stop these changes from being put forth. Again, Obama's plan only applies to American companies, so it wouldn't affect imports. What it says is if you move your manufacturing center or your help desk off shore, you pay a higher tax than companies that stay in America. Currently, an American company can have its entire manufacturing base in another country and sell its products in America without any tariffs because it's not counted as an import. This balances that.

Correct. Cheaper raw materials, shorter supply chain are all factors. But they're generally factors that play into outsourcing more then keeping jobs domestic. It probably isn't a 1:1 ratio, but increasing quality tends increase cost. It requires more R&D, more quality control (more emplyees), higher-grade materials, more exacting equipment, etc.Economies of scale would probably bring prices down in the long run, but most companies are sadly short-sighted. Technically. The general Republican economic theories, which have been tried, don't work. They tend to concentrate wealth at the top. The policies they've enacted are the ones that have lead to the point we're at, so I tend to ignore them when they talk about economics, and then vote against them in elections. There's a lot fo incentive...lower taxes. If you mean it would drive business owners to incorporate outside the US and thus make everything they produce and sell in America imports, then they will pay tariffs, or in effect, higher import taxes.

Yes, a company can increase profit by raising costs, but that tends to drive demand to the cheaper competitor. Company A decides to raise prices so the raising cost of production can be overcome. Company B keeps prices the same but moves their production facility overseas to keep production costs down. Consumers buy Company B's product, driving Company A to either lower costs, eating into profit, moving overseas like Company B, or going out of business. In general, higher quality labor demand higher wages, which increases cost to the company. If we raise all labor to the same level, labor costs may stay down, but that's easier said than done. As soon as some people are better trained or educated, they'll ask for higher wages, and once we get everyone to the same level, those wages will be the norm for that position, and any attempt top lower wages will result in strikes or lowered morale.

The idea is that the US marketplace is such a prize that non-US companies would want to sell their products here. If they want to, they'll have to conform to the labor laws the US enforces within its borders.If, say, Sony decides that being able to sell TVs in America is not worth paying their workers more or ensuring worker safety and 40 hour weeks, or whatever, they'd be free to not sell their products in America. I don't think they'd do that.And, if other developed nations, like western Europe, Canada, Japan, etc all enact similar legislation, it will force almost all companies that wish to sell internationally to raise their standards. I'm not exactly assuming other nations will adopt this law, but if the US starts, it might cause some others to follow the lead.

You really think the major international corporations would choose to just leave the American marketplace?If this is true, then yeah, maybe my idea won't work. What about, instead of enforcing complete compliance with US labor laws, just the one's relating to worker safety? It would be a start, and there might be room to grow from that to more compliance, especially if other nations join in.It would benefit the workers who are being exploited right now in China and even in India.

If those restrictions improve worker safety, then I'd be ok with that. I'm not trying to be isolationist, in fact, I'm trying to raise the standard of living in all the countries to match what we enjoy in America. Seeing as how I can't impose my will on a foreign government, I can test-run an idea involving economic pressures.In one of my favorite hard sci-fi novels, metanational corporations actually end up being more powerful than countries. I see that possibility coming closer and closer as any company that doesn't like rules in a country can move to a new one but continue to sell in all. This leads to countries competing to make their corporate climate more corporation friendly, essentially signing away their sovereignty as well as the health of their labor force.

Which is why I mentioned the hope that other countries would follow the US' lead. I recognize that the US market is not as dominant as it once was, but I still don't see too many corporations that would be willing to just write off the entire country. I could be wrong. I own a passport, and love to travel.As for making others do what I want, I'm concerned for the workers in places like Foxconn in China, who work 12 hours a day or more, live in barracks without much social outlet, for tiny wages, and where deaths happen relatively frequently.Seeing as how the US can't force a foreign nation to treat its workers better, I was thinking we could do a sort of side-step that would make corporations treat their workers better voluntarily. Hence my idea. I think, as moral beings, we should make our institutions as moral as we can. If we're content to sit back and buy an iPad, despite knowing that it's entirely possible that someone died to make it, then perhaps we're not as moral as we like to think we are.

But, but Mitt Romney (and the Supreme Court) says they're people. /cry Well, the 1930s isn't exactly yesterday, especially since it wasn't until the 1920s or so that corporations really became huge. Exactly. But the problem is, unlike in the 30s and 40s, we can't just pass a law in America and expect it to make the lives of people better. With the "smaller" world we live in, a corporation can just move to a "flag of convenience" and continue doing as it wants. If we want to make workers' lives better, we need to go after the only thing a corporation cares about: its profit. If it stops being profitable for a corporation to abuse and exploit its workers, many of them will stop.

I agree, but we can't dictate education policy to foreign nations. All we can do is control what happens within our borders.I think what we could really use is a summit of developed nations, all of them agreeing to do something together to try and combat these abuses. If all countries put their market-share together and hit the corporations in the profit, then real change can be effected.