Wednesday, June 02, 2004

Pay Me More Money!

Evenin'

I should point out that there are several different aspects to the whole globalisation field.

firstly, one should decide which cause they feel most passionately about, and decide what particular thing about globalisation is hurting their cause.

for example, one might consider third world hunger worth fighting for, or independent business, the environment, one's culture, poverty or unemployment in one's country, or if you're feeling mellow, peace on earth.

then, one has to suggest a cause of this 'bad thing', to counter any neo-con/free-market nut/anarchist's/left-wing pinko argument thrown in the air.

my favourites for unemployment in the US have been "not enough tax cuts", "the unions drove wages up so high we had to move production to the third world".

now, one points to the obvious - it's all the fault of globalisation. Of course these jobs would stay if protectionist tariffs were still up. Because companies are allowed to produce overseas at pennies an hour, there's no way Joe USA can compete with China Charlie. So how does one solve unemployment then, if not through globalisation? Well, I like the government option. Improve China's labour laws, so that they earn a decent wage. The US steps up education, both child and adult, so Jimmy-Bean can learn another trade. It might not be rocket science, but there's plenty of jobs out there for those qualified.

so why doesn't it happen? "if we paid them more, we wouldn't be able to sell these goods at these low low prices", "we need unemployment, because if labour was a scarce resource, we'd pay too much for it and we'd go broke".

sounds fair, (though I wouldn't mind seeing some of my previous employers crash and burn) but consider; 1 billion Chinese. All earning as much as the average American. All spending that money, and paying taxes. Not to say the rest of the third world where this production takes place. Henry Ford, the father of modern industrialisation knew what he was on about when he paid his workers enough that they could afford to buy the first automobile. Nowadays, a seamstress in Guam would have to work a month of 14 hour days to buy a Disney baby suit, some US$30.

while greater wages may seem bad to the individual company looking at rising costs, if spread across the nation, the net gain would be enormous as the market spends on more consumer goods. More holidays, bigger TV's, whatever you're selling, you can sell more of it the more Joe Average has to spend.

and, this is important, the more tax the government is getting to spend on important things like education and the environment, and all that pesky foreign aid that just keeps piling up wouldn't be needed as the third world's wages increase. Imagine actually wiping those trillions off the board around the world, without introducing those pesky 'reverse interest' laws that Keynes was so keen on. Mind you, I still dig the 'Tobin Tax', that 1% on every financial transaction. Use it to tempt the third world to lift their game.

The trick is, to get the companies to stay put, and avoid going offshore to cheaper climes. Financial rewards and threats, whatever it takes to stay. Or one could pressure the major exporters to lift their game, pointing out the obvious benefits. As China is the major producer for the American Consumer, kicking the behemoth into better labour conditions could make this a pyramid scheme, the big boys passing the buck, to the point where it is not fiscally sensible for a nation not to have a minimum wage.

and then, when everyone in the world owns a car, we'll all die from smog poisoning.
But that's another post.

-Keegan posted by Keegan at 9:06 pm

----------------