I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this discussion. On the one
hand I sympathize with Kristen and Kat and Jeroen and Bob's opinions, but on
the other hand I think that there is some good being done by the exportation
of jobs. The good I see is 1) as JDG mentioned, poor unemployed workers in
developing countries get jobs thus some of our wealth is transferred to places
in the world that need it most. 2) The new income to these places increases
the buying power of some of these newly employed people or at least the
entrepreneurs in their country that can manage to take advantage of this
influx of income. This may result in some benefit to our economy as more
people world wide are able to afford our (developed world) products. 3) The
exportation of our culture and values to the far reaches of the earth -
primarily the ideas of freedom and democracy (though admittedly the latter has
taken a real hit as a result of the recent election).
Of course I am very concerned about working conditions and detrimental effects
of industry on the environment, but being an optimist I'm hoping that any rise
above abject poverty will make the people of those countries more aware of
those problems and more able to do something about them. I think one point
John made is valid: the poorest people in the U.S. would seem very well off
indeed to the poorest in other countries.
I don't think that U.S. corporations that are exporting labor really see it
this way, I think that they are generally very short sighted and could care
less about how what they are doing now will effect the world, the economy or
even their own business in a few years. I just think that the globalization
of our economy might have some positive effects and that our efforts should
not be to stop the exportation of jobs altogether but perhaps to moderate it
and to encourage the adoption of our kinds of standards as regards labor laws,
environmental regulations and the like. Basically what I'm saying is that I'd
like to see more of the world share our good fortune.
Doug
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yikes, is that a bulls eye on my forehead?
"Until recently there was no particular contemporary relevance to the
nicknames of some of our less-favored presidents. Rutherford B. Hayes, victor
in the hijacked electoral vote of 1876, was known as "Old 8-7" or "His
Fraudulency." John Tyler, promoted from vice president when William Henry
Harrison died of pneumonia after only one month in office, was referred to as
"His Accidency." After the events of November and December 2000, however, a
big question of the new year is whether the Democrats will have the guts to
coin and circulate a comparable name for George W. Bush."
>From "His Fraudulency the Second" by Kevin Phillips
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/2/phillips-k.html
