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.

How would you enforce these laws?

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.

The alternative is to simply make U.S. products worth people's while so they'll willingly buy them in place of imported goods and despite their increased price.Jon

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.

Our minimum wage would be huge in the service jobs sector of many other countries. I fear that it would not help those of us who make above minimum, however. That's one glaring problem. Other than that, I like your idea.

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.

Non-American companies would love this as it would make US products uncompetitive. The only way around this would be to put trade barriers up against Sony, Samsung, LG etc etc etc which would kill imports and retail.....

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.

This really deals with two different things:

• The market for labor, and
• The market for goods

If the U.S. wants to make its labor market more appealing, it can do things like educate its citizens and provide them with essential skill sets that will make them worth the extra wages. If the U.S. wants to make its products more appealing, it can improve their quality and work toward innovating solutions to serious global problems such as ways to generate energy with minimal pollution output.These things aren't conceptually difficult. But in practicality they pose quite the challenge. People like Phat will resist with a fiery passion learning new skills or taking on jobs manufacturing products they are unfamiliar with. They'll beller on and on about how it is unfair and suggest nonsense 'solutions' for their competition like "nuking them is a viable option" (Whine & Cheese, # 5).Implementation of these solutions will face opposition at every turn and corner.It will not be easy; but it will be worth it. These aren't solutions, and their only outcome can be a slew of international relations nightmares.Jon

Can't work. Take an iPad, it would cost, I don't know, say, twice as much as it does now to produce so it would be uncompetitive in the rest of the world. Meanwhile Samsung sells its iPad clone in the US at high price and in the rest of the world at a much lower price - it wins.Protectionism always hurts the protected.

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.

Then we educate them more. These things cannot be helped. Resources aren't evenly distributed in the world. We can't have all the resources, but that only means we have to try that much harder to increase the global value of the resources we do have. Because the quality differences clearly aren't large enough to warrant the extra price. It only means we have to try that much harder to produce quality products that are actually worth their price. Not at all. I mentioned one type of person who absolutely despises the notion of the U.S. competing with other nations on the ridiculous grounds that it isn't 'fair'. Do not think Phat's mentality is unique to Phat; because it is not. Who will want American products if we put up barriers to importing from other nations? A nation cannot import more than it exports and expect no ill from it.Jon

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.

The companies will choose inputs that maximize profits. This does not always mean cheaper labor. Why does it have to come with a similarly large increase in cost? Republicans are people too. With that, there's no incentive for a company to have any of its operations in the U.S.Jon