1.8 Million US jobs lost to trade with China

Sad stuff. Curious how we keep hearing how China will be more open after the Olympics too. Yeah right.

While the trade situation with China is ridiculous, it's a little simplistic to say the US has lost 1.8 million jobs since 2001 because of it. What the article says is that "production that could have supported 2,166,000 U.S. jobs" was sent to China. It's not like 2 million people who were doing these jobs were given pink slips so the Chinese could do the jobs. It reads more like new production that could have created 2 million new jobs here, was sent over there instead.

Also, the US has had 44 straight months of job growth since 2003.

Of course, think of how many more jobs would be added if the trade imbalance with China were eliminated or even reduced significantly. I won't even pretend I know the best way to do that, but I think it would obviously require new trade laws that even the playing field between the US and China.

Because Corporations have all of the rights and none of the responsibilities of a person.

While it's a total downer of a film, I love how The Corporation points out that if a corporation was actually a person, it would be diagnosed as a sociopath.

US citizens should not be prosecuted for breaking American laws overseas, as long as they're obeying the laws of the country in which they're staying. Neither should corporations. This doesn't apply to tax law, of course, but I don't think the American laws you mentioned refer specifically to that. If I remember correctly, the only laws to which that applies are sex-related.

And you don't think that would give international companies a strong competitive edge over U.S. firms?

it seems to me that the best way for the US to improve how it's viewed in the world would be to pay the people in these developing countries a good wage, give them good working conditions, etc... Really, how is doubling some poor workers pay by a factor of 2 (for instance), thereby giving them the opportunity to get ahead and provide for their families, going to add more than a quarter to the price you pay for a Gap t-shirt, seeing as how one operator probably makes 20 or more and hour? Developed countries have obligations (moral and ethical) to ensure that these people are treated well, and if the corporations won't do it voluntarily, they should be forced to do so.

Both strike me examples of the kind of moralizing for which Americans are derided. "Your laws aren't good enough for our people."

One of the things that countries do is impose the laws that govern people within their borders. Casting that aside could have long-term effects on our ability to impose our own law within our own borders.

It's business, of course it's all about profits. Always has been.

That's just it, though. Your position treats other nations like children that are unable to pass laws for themselves.

No. The other nation is the kid's parents.

You're right, Mastro. On further reflection, yt's analogy makes children of Americans, which is a classic error of modern liberal thought. It isn't the province of the US government to raise its people after they reach adulthood, and the rules of said government should not override those of a friendly nation.

The uncomfortable thing about discussing this principle, of course, is that it most directly applies to US law prohibiting the universally despicable crime of child sexual exploitation (an act which I'm pretty sure is already universally criminal). Nevertheless, the principle holds: if it's legal in Rome, you oughtta be able to do it in Rome.

One thought that has always struck me is that the argument in favor of a "fair wage" for foreign workers stands a chance of crushing a smaller economy. Presumably, even in smaller countries, it's more lucrative to be a doctor than it is to be a factory laborer. But, if we double or triple the average wage of a factory laborer, it diminshes the incentive for people in those countries to become doctors, lawyers, or whatever other skilled career you might pick.

Of course, the argument isn't flawless (obviously, some portion of the raised salaries would be pushed upstream, economically), but I do think that a fair number of people think that the moment you give Nike's foreign employees $2.25 an hour, many problems are solved.

That's like saying that since you get enough money to support yourself working in a cubicle, you don't have the incentive to becoming anything more than an office rat.

Utter nonsense. It goes back to the sham of trying to convince people that the poor are poor because they are lazy or lack the incentive to work harder and do something with their lives.

In fact, in most of those third world countries it is children that toil in order for us to enjoy our sneakers. And they just don't get the chance to become doctors, lawyers, or whatever other skilled career they might have picked.

You can't really work twelve hour shifts at the factory and study for you SATs.

No, I think it's much more akin to saying "If I can make $145,000 a year as a lawyer or $145,000 a year ironing decals on to T-Shirts, which would I rather do?"

As for the rest of it, I wasn't arguing those points in the first place, so I'm going to leave them alone.

yt, I agree that I'm on a slippery slope here, as your example of "Death Perfume" illustrates (Personally, I prefer "Tears of the Innocent #5," but that's just me.).

Nevertheless, the slippery slopes are where all the action is. The slippery slope you're on, for example, is that of infringements upon sovereignty. As
Americans, we expect to have complete control of the laws within our borders. If we took your position farther down the slope, we'd have to allow other nations to regulate the behavior of their citizens within our borders: Saudi citizens who operate businesses here, for example, would be justified in refusing to accept parts made in Israel.

I think more to the point the danger is that if you suddenly triple the wage in poor country X the multinational will simply take off for a cheaper labor market, leaving X's citizens to far grimmer employment options, and as you said possibly destabilizing the economy.

YT, that may not have been the best example. I made it up off the top of my head, drawing on the fact that my father, a (now retired) McDonnel Douglas technician, once spent six weeks in Saudi removing all the Israeli parts from a DC-10 and replacing them with custom-fabricated parts made in different countries.

I sincerely doubt, however, that America is the world's business scourge. We aren't the ones lining up to do business with the despicable governmnet of Burma (China, Russia, India), we aren't underwriting Sudan's genocide in Darfur (China), and we aren't enabling Iran to pursue to nuclear technology with one hand while voting for unenforceable UN Security Council resolutions against such activity with the other (Russia). We have nothing do to with the toxic dust storms coming off the Aral Sea (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan), nor are we deforesting the Amazon (Brazil).

I don't have anything to add except that I'm really enjoying the conversation going on between yt and frank. Definitely a topic that I'm interested in and slowly becoming more knowledgable about..

Re: America being the world's scourge. Isn't that why American businesses keep outsourcing as much as possible? Due to the relaxed (or non-existent) laws in emerging countries vs. dealing with the various government organizations here (OSHA, EPA, etc.). So while not being the world's worst, per se, surely we are culpible because American businesses know better and choose to do business in other countries to avoid the more costly (and safer) methods of production?

The issue is that it's a zero-sum game. You have a country...let's say Indonesia. It doesn't have a lot of resources and it's traditionally very poor. Obviously, that country wants to attract business. So, they invite businesses in by promising lax laws, particularly related to labor standards. Sure, Nike knows better. But, if Nike doesn't move in, then a footwear company from China will. Those cost savings will allow the Chinese company to ship shoes of equal quality into the United States for a lower price. Then Nike goes out of business and we're left with the company that exploited in the first place.

The only way to really create change here is for the people as a whole to decide to support only those products that are made under good working conditions for fair wages. But, every single day we vote OVERWHELMINGLY for the exact opposite. If we really cared, we'd be buying all our clothes from American Apparel and our food from Whole Foods. Instead, we support Wal-Mart, which will do anything to shave pennies off a gross of trial-size shampoos.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Sorry but I believe you're mistaken here. And are you suggesting advertising is a frivolous expense?

I think you might be surprised by his answers.

yt, there's something about the ominous phrasing of "the corporations," as though that were some kind of shorthand for evil, that bothers me. The good people at Amnesty International, Inc.; American Red Cross, Inc.; and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. would surely beg to differ.

You know what, if the average Joe couldn't care less for the damaged caused by his sneakers or his cheap DVD players, screw him.

If ensuring that eating beef will not rot your brains means that some meat companies go out of business, let them go out of business.

If sticking to your principles means that the US stops being the baddest boy around, then let it be so.

There are still morals. There are still universal human rights. There is still the issue of public health and safety. All these are non-negotiable. You can't make up excuses and circumvent them, unless you are prepared to throw two centuries of social progress to the dogs.

By the way, I always thought it's funny that most pro-big business people assume they'll be on the winning side. They don't really entertain the thought that they might be among those who are screwed by their bosses' greed.

yt, I think your concerns about US Gov't standards and practices, your ability to make informed choices, and unchecked expansion of power by unaccountable interests are valid and reasonable. In the beginning of your post, you back away from broad-brushing "the corporations," but by the end you return to doing it. What do you think of a formulation like this:

All organizations should be expected to operate within the legal, ethical, and moral boundaries of the nations in which they exist or operate.

This phrasing speaks to your concerns, but it hedges a bit against Mastro's universalism. As a function of one of my jobs, I do a significant amount of travelling among civilizations. I see dramatically different approaches to a wide variety of ethical issues and, while there are some infractions that are universally loathsome, there aren't many. That's why I'm resistant to universal dominion of a given nation's law. Since no government can fully understand the dynamics occurring in the territory of another, it seems most reasonable for each nation to tend to its own garden as much as possible.

Ahh, the FDR example - my weak spot! He successfully navigated a time of great social turmoil, a time when the US was vulnerable to both fascism and communism. And he got us 7/8 of the way to winning the war. What a guy, and easily one of the Top 4 presidents of US history.

Having said that, laws are supposed to serve both people and businesses, since businesses put bread on people's tables. As business becomes more complex and globally interconnected, law needs to keep up: it's in the interests of businesses of all sizes, and the people who depend on them for their well being, for it to do so.

The question then becomes, how should the law keep up? As a series of general principles, I submit that the law should do the following (of course, this is off the top of my head and subject to refinement):

1. Maintain a healthy degree of fair play in business dealings.
2. Respect sovereignty.
3. Hold all stakeholders equally accountable.

I invite the next Elliot Spitzer to make the case. Until then, I will not rush to condemnation.

yt, surely you know that we are not, nor have we ever been, a democracy. Nevertheless, I'm with you wrt to ethical behavior. Without becoming too much a moral relativist, however, I maintain that standards of ethical behavior vary from country to country. For example, I'm currently in a part of the world in which many American mores are widely seen as ridiculous. As I wrote in an earlier exchange, there are a limited number of universally unconscionable behaviors. As much as possible, however, nations should tend to their own back yards.

That list off worst offenders provided by yt is a bit ridiculous.

They spent a bit over $150 per dinner attendee, a class of professionals who are mostly very well paid all over the world. This is the sole reason to put a corporation on this list? This really makes it hard to take this list seriously.

Yeah, couldn't they find something a little more evil than buying overpaid people dinner? I suspect they outsourced their investigative journalism to a bunch of wide-eyed college students.

I'm conflicted on this duel between sacred cows: job and dollar. In my view, mindless reverence to either is simple avarice, and a symptom of ethical laziness. The owness is on the citizen to be useful: contribute to society productively, ethically, and with the best interest of everyone in mind.

It seems to me as though the modern "job" — the idea of being employed, NOT things like fair wages and sound work conditions —*has been given undue moral status. For example, the statement "money builds communities" probably seems cynical; however, the statement "jobs build communities" appears legitimate. But the truth is, people build communities. Moreover, the aforementioned statements are often synonymous —*modern jobs are typically sources of money rather than social roles played as part of a functioning community.

Granted, this point is grounded in the notion that todays' job is viewed by the worker purely as an income source. And to that extent, I think most people elect to remain completely ignorant as to how their employment affects themselves, their community, and the big world we all inhabit. All told, the worker is just as cynical as the corporation. So what is morally outrageous about losing 1.8 million jobs? Other than that it sucks.

But when it comes to lost jobs, people act as though the most sacred part of society has been violated.

I say nothing has been violated, save a mutually parasitic relationship based on simple avarice — get me more cheap consumer goods, and I'll do whatever you call work.

That's a great idea. While I'd be very skeptical of how the store's CEO, President, Board, and advisors quantified what is and what is not "cruelty/damage free," there is certainly a market for this kind of retail outlet, particularly in "dark blue" parts of the country. Assuming the fundamentals were sound, I'd invest in a venture like this.

Wow, you've just asked a dissertation-sized question. Much as I'd love to, I just don't have time to write a dissertation-sized answer, so here's the short version: free trade moves capital around the world more easily, which facilitates the transfer of money from rich countries to poor countries. This works better than centralized government subzidization because it removes all the layers of bureaucracy that government control entails. Further, it results in lower prices for the rich-country consumer, which translates to dollars in your pocket.

Here's an example: the Caribbean is ridiculously poor. The Caribbean grows some of the world's best sugar cane, which is a superior sweetener and a superior source of ethanol, but it cannot compete on the US market because the US government subsidizes US corn farmers, who churn out the inferior corn syrup and corn products that we in the US use as our primary sweetening agent and key ingredient in our home-grown ethanol. This subsidy serves as a de facto tariff, because it artificially inflates the entry price of the foreign good (high-quality sugar) trying to enter the US market. Net result: a Caribbean that's still mired in poverty because it cannot exploit its own resources and an American consumer public getting hit with a quadruple whammy: mandatory payments, in the form of taxation converted to government subsidies, to Big Corn to finance the subsidy; higher prices at the checkout counter and the pump due to artificially inflated sugar prices; lousy foods made with a second-rate sweetener; and being forced to bear witness to the continuing misery of our neighbors to the Southeast.

I mostly agree with you, but from the other perspective: in a free market system, nothing should be able to prevent me from bringing to market any gadget that I think will sell. I'm for a reformation of patent law to prevent patent squatting, or the securing of rights to a given invention for the sole purpose of sitting on them and quashing the invention.

You hear it a lot because it's true. One of the foundations of our government is a profound distrust of the "fickle mob." It's why the President (the head of State) has more power than the Senate (the Elite) has more power than the House (the People). Our government was designed to be a steady ship, not a nimble boat. It's supposed to take a mighty force of will to change its course. Ideas need time to germinate, grow in the public consciousness, and reach a critical, unstoppable mass before they're instituted.

Because, of course, stability is good for business.

And here we are again, full-circle to the original dispute. The US Government should have the right to exercise full sovereignty over foreign companies operating within its borders. Conversely, it should respect the full sovereignty of the countries within whose borders American companies operate.

NOTE: Adam, you make some interesting and thought-provoking points, and they merit further consideration. Unfortunately, I only have enough free time to focus on one major interlocutor per thread. Nevertheless, I just wanted to let you know that you are not being ignored.

yt, I think we're nearing the end of this particular thought-journey. Nevertheless, I'd like to clarify that there is, in fact, no tariff against Caribbean sugar. The situation I described works as a de facto tariff, because it protects US companies from competetion from cheaper international competitors. It's the best example I could come up with off the top of my head: it's easy to understand and it pisses me off.

There's a fascinating article on Chinese industry in this month's Atlantic. You can't miss it - it's the cover story.