Arthur,
Have you not read the case studies by Oxfam and other charities who
describe what happens when child labour -- for example in India and
Pakistan -- is forced out of existence by well-meaning Westerners? Far
worse fates follow for many of these children and teenagers, particularly
the girls.
It's their only way of picking themselves up by their bootstraps -- as
indeed a generation or two did in England in the late 18th century. And
South Korea did only 40 years ago (and now has higher average wages than
England).
If you stamp out child labour in Third world countries then not only do you
artificially and temporarily protect home industries but you are preventing
the former getting out of the gutter.
I thought this particular type of debate was over and done with years ago.
Can't we move on to much more relevant concerns today?
Keith Hudson
At 12:15 08/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
Keith,
You do what you can. What you don't do is open the borders to goods made
abroad where workers' wages are a small fraction of wages at home; where
environmental laws are nil or negligible; where child labour is the rule
rather than the exception.
The free traders are always in some sort of rush. What's the rush. We
hear in Canada the constant drum beat "macht schnell", hurry up or we are
going to be left behind as a third world country. It could be that by
throwing open the borders, third world status will be with us sooner
rather than later.
Sure education/knowledge/innovation, etc., is important. Also important
is social cohesion, a sense of predictability and the existence of a
middle class. Rushing globalizaiton benefits the elites in society and
raises wages in certain low wage countries. If globalization is so
important, then we should move slowly and cautiously. Right now it seems
to be a veiled attack on the trade unions in industrialized countries and
the by-product is the continuing immizeration of the middle class. This
can only lead to a bad outcome.
arthur
________________________________
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 12/8/2006 2:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [email protected]; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [Futurework] Democrats and "Free" Trade
I was not writing of "economists' time" but of the time it takes to offer
full educational opportunities to the children of any unfortunate workers
who are displaced by more efficient industries or services elsewhere in
order for the children to have a better chance of avoiding the same state
as their parents.
And it is to be remembered that more workers are displaced by efficiency
in competitive industries and services at home rather than abroad. So what
do you do about that? If you try to protect this situation you are in
danger of doing what the USSR did for 70 years -- which has now bequeathed
Russia with an increasingly impoverished, demoralised and steeply
declining population with galloping Aids, hard drug addiction, TB and
alcoholism.
KH
At 22:41 07/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:
One among many problems with the neo-liberal "open markets raises all
boats" theory is that while jobs are lost in real time, standards of
living are increased in "economists'" time which could be short
term but
is usually medium or long term (or never term given that there
are always
exogenous factors that intervene that don't quite fit into the
economists'
supply curves...
And of course as Keynes most famously said "in the long run...
MG
> Arthur,
>
> If the Democrats in America can't decide on free trade or
otherwise, then
> tough luck on them, because customers will decide for them
sooner or later
> by buying cheaper goods made abroad and avoiding costlier
home-made goods.
>
> If it's sooner, then the out-of-work factory (and some service)
workers
> will concentrate government's mind on reforming the education
of its
> children. If it's later, then the factories (and some other
services) will
> be forever inefficient compared with those in other countries
and the
> general standard of living will go down. And then the factory (etc)
> workers
> will be out of work a litte later anyway. The general standard
of living
> could remain down forever from then onwards when one considers
the rate of
> technological change and the new skills required.)
>
> If a country wants to engage then its government should ensure
the best
> possible education for its children, outlaw protective
practices in all
> trades and professions (and publicise all past formal
credentialising
> examinations). In this way, everybody will have as interesting
jobs as
> they
> are capable of and shorter working weeks and more leisure time will
> gradually become the norm.
>
> Keith Hudson
>
> At 20:40 07/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C71A6A.19761E86";
>> x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4B151299
>>
>>dir=ltr>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------
>>From: Strategic Forecasting, Inc. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Thu 12/7/2006 7:28 PM
>>To: Subject: Stratfor Public Policy Intelligence Report
>>
>>468e12.jpg
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.14/578 - Release Date:
07/12/2006
snip, snip......................
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org
<http://www.evolutionary-economics.org/> >
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/579 - Release Date: 07/12/2006
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/579 - Release Date: 07/12/2006
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
