China Megathread - Their navy can be taken seriously or taken littorally

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > China Megathread - Their navy can be taken seriously or taken littorally

more friedman units: Jul 7, 2010; The next six months will be critical.

Arglebargle III posted:

It's an unfortunate truth that the industrial world went through exactly the same trials and tribulations a hundred years ago. Maybe it doesn't have to be like this, but the way it is is better for the locals than they way it was. Hopefully when this process has played out everywhere it will be over for good.

Now the impact of all this globalization on the environment is a different story entirely. I often wonder if the standard globalization apologia argument that I've just laid out has a catch, in that it will destroy the world as we know it before the shining future without sweatshops ever arrives.

It's not clear to me WHY a developing economy has to go through an abusive sweatshop-labor phase, or that it's a one-time stage in economic development. Notice how the refrain from companies is that U.S. workers have to become more "competitive" and accept lower wages along with longer hours, less stringent workplace safety measures, and no unionization?

# ¿ Feb 20, 2012 22:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:37

more friedman units: Jul 7, 2010; The next six months will be critical.

asdf32 posted:

I think one hang-up is inappropriately romanticizing undeveloped life. So it's not that countries go from 'quaint rural phase' to 'abusive laborious sweatshop phase' before becoming developed. It's that they go from 'laborious rural phase' to 'equally or slightly less laborious sweatshop phase' to, hopefully, developed phase. China is deep in the middle of this process.

Subsistence farming isn't particularly romantic, no. I mentioned this in my previous post, but notice how both you and Democrazy are treating this as one step in a linear process towards becoming a developed country.

My whole point was that we're seeing backsliding in developed countries towards the removal of workplace protections and labor organization as their economies are placed under stress. Why is that happening if economic development is a one-way march of progress?

Democrazy posted:

It's awesome to say that sweatshops are wrong and that workers shouldn't be forced to live in difficult conditions. What's a plausible policy towards actually getting rid of sweatshops and improving welfare for the Chinese worker?

Worker cooperatives? Basic union representation and safety measures?

"Tut tut, implementing the forty-hour work week and ending child labor simply aren't plausible! Why, no business could ever be profitable in those conditions!"

# ¿ Feb 21, 2012 00:50

more friedman units: Jul 7, 2010; The next six months will be critical.

Democrazy posted:

Actually, industrialization in the developing world has a track record of decreasing child labor, as the higher wages and shifting means of production de-emphasize child labor as a crucial component for family survival.

It may also be that a forty-hour work week would be incompatible with high-labor low-capital production as workers are not yet productive enough by the hour to garner the wages necessary to to make a living. You cannot simply impose Western high-capital worker standards of living without development taking place in the economy, as higher standards of living are byproducts of productivity that is essential for the basic functioning of the market.

Though I am pro-union (because that is simply market forces) and for regulation in areas such as basic safety and the environment. But one does have to be aware of the necessity of attracting foreign capital, whether one wants to or not. Without foreign capital inflows, it is unlikely that China will be able to expand its economy at anything similar to what it enjoys now, the kind of pace that actually does allow workers out of sustenance farming.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I was comparing what you were saying to the things American industrialists claimed during the early labor movement.

Do you notice how you're using very indirect language to talk about these issues?

quote:

One does have to be aware of the necessity of attracting foreign capital, whether one wants to or not.

Rather than using evasive wording, you could just say that foreign companies won't use Chinese suppliers without the abusive sweatshop labor model. If China tried to move away from that model, the companies would shift their factory orders to countries that are willing to embrace it.

How are unions "simply market forces" when they require a legal and societal super-structure of beliefs that will support them as a concept? If a company closes down any store or factory that attempts to unionize and fires union organizers, how does a union gain any traction?

Notice how the American labor movement has been steadily weakened due to deliberate policy choices and political rhetoric.

more friedman units fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Feb 21, 2012

# ¿ Feb 21, 2012 01:19

more friedman units: Jul 7, 2010; The next six months will be critical.

asdf32 posted:

No, not for poor countries. Rich countries have plenty of stuff and distribution can matter. Poor countries don't have enough stuff to begin with and making more stuff is the best priority.

There are several problems with increased labor standards and companies leaving is a big one. The other is that lower hours would mean less production, and as I said, this matters. A poor family won't chose lower hours if they aren't meeting their needs and neither will a poor society. Labor standards are a luxury only well-off societies will realistically contemplate. This is what Democrazy was getting at. Not only will you never see a labor movement developing in a poor country but it wouldn't even make sense. All that said I feel like China is on the cusp where it will quickly start imposing standards.

While outsourcing is beneficial to the recipients I think it can be to blame for declines in the labor movement in the developed world.

I guess I don't understand the argument that distributional issues only matter once countries reach the mythical "developed" stage, and ONLY THEN can things like labor standards be considered. If weekly hours are limited and/or hourly wages are raised and further production is needed, a company can...hire more workers? Unless the labor market is at full employment, what's the issue with this?

So labor movements only make sense for developed countries, but developed countries are experiencing prolonged degradation in their labor movements due to outsourcing of production to countries more willing to abuse their workforce. I'm honestly confused when a labor movement is viable or 'plausible' in this worldview.

# ¿ Feb 21, 2012 02:59

more friedman units: Jul 7, 2010; The next six months will be critical.

asdf32 posted:

Well let me remind you that what you consider degraded standards in the developed world would be a considerable achievements in the developing world.

Okay, that's true, but my point was that developed countries are seeing a degradation of labor standards in order to compete with developing countries. What's to prevent Chinese standards from stalling or regressing in order to maintain their relative advantage of being more willing to abuse labor if developed countries continue to follow suit?

This is what I mean when I say that I find the linear economic development story to be unconvincing. Are U.S. workers supposed to return to the days of living in company towns and working 14 hour days in a poorly-ventilated factory in order to be competitive?

# ¿ Feb 21, 2012 03:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > China Megathread - Their navy can be taken seriously or taken littorally