« Cheapness and Trade | Main | In the Long-Run, We're All Living Better (Where A Culture of Enterprise and Honesty Prevails)» Don Boudreaux
November 01, 2006
Workers and the Space-Time Continuum
Don Boudreaux
Tomorrow evening, at Bucknell University, I'll debate Thea Lee of the AFL-CIO on the issue of international trade. (I'll champion competition; Ms. Lee will champion monopoly.) The debate is sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
Doing some last-minute research for my debate, I ran across an essay that Ms. Lee wrote for a book entitled The Case Against "Free Trade" (Earth Island Press, 1993). I was struck by her recommendation, on page 74, that
NAFTA should require all countries to meet the highest labor standards now in place in any of the three nations. To enforce those standards, workers and unions should have the right to challenge the import of goods produced in a way that violates standards of their own country.
If, unlike me, you accept the logic of Ms. Lee's argument that it's wrong to let American consumers buy goods made by workers who toiled under government-regulatory standards that are less strict than those that American workes currently toil under, why limit the restrictions she endorses to other countries? Why not bring in the time dimension as well?
Why not prevent Americans from buying things such as antique furniture or vintage automobiles or houses constructed before World War II?
If the argument against buying things produced by allegedly exploited labor is chiefly a moral one -- an argument that such things are tainted by exploitation and, hence, are unfit morally for human consumption -- then things made in the past by U.S. workers are tainted because workers in the past didn't toil under the same "protections" that workers today toil under.
The same conclusion is reached if the argument rests principally upon the proposition that it's unfair for workers today, whose employers are commanded to offer greater amounts of workplace protection than were employers in the past, to compete with products produced by exploited workers. Why should today's house-construction workers have to compete with houses produced by their exploited brethren of 75 or 100 years ago?
Of course, what's done in the past is done. Preventing the sale and use today of products made in the past by exploited workers does nothing to save those workers in the past from their cruel fates.
But banning the sale of thing made in the past when labor standards were lower would nevertheless increase the demand for workers today in those industries whose outputs compete with used products -- products such as residential housing, office buildings, recreational boats and commercial ships, furniture, jewelry, and to some extent automobiles, musical instruments, and household fixtures such as kitchen sinks and chandeliers. If it's unfair and immoral for workers today who are protected by high labor standards to compete against products produced without such hindrances -- because such competition unfairly reduces the demand for today's output, or because it puts pressure on government to reduce workers' statutory protections -- then it makes little difference that the products produced unfairly are produced today by exploited workers or produced in the past by exploited workers.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Regulation, Trade, Work | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200d834317d5753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Workers and the Space-Time Continuum:
Comments
I would like to hear what the workers have to say about it. If they tell me that they feel so badly about how they are treated that they don't want me to buy the products they make, then I will gladly comply with their wishes. But my guess is that they would mostly rather have these jobs then not have them.
Posted by: Randy | Nov 1, 2006 4:37:51 PM
You are on fire, Dr. Boudreaux!!
What ever you are eating for breakfast, keep it up!!
Posted by: Rex Pjesky | Nov 1, 2006 4:54:19 PM
Don,
This is a clever idea - unfortunately it's also a fantastical fallacy.
Let us assume, for the purposes of argument, that Chinese workers are exploited. You describe previous generations of American workers as being 'exploited'.
Are their relative degrees of exploitation comparable?
And do the Chinese have the opportunity to organise and lobby for improvements in their conditions, as Americans did?
Not likely...
Posted by: Martin | Nov 1, 2006 5:11:22 PM
Please post the transcript of this debate on the site. I'm sure it will be quite the spectacle.
Posted by: James | Nov 1, 2006 5:27:28 PM
And if other countries have stronger labor "standards" than the US, should we boycot US goods?
Posted by: JoshK | Nov 1, 2006 5:35:21 PM
give her hell, don.
Posted by: josh | Nov 1, 2006 6:01:05 PM
The moral reason not to buy goods produced by exploited labor is that in doing so, you provide an incentive for producers to exploit labor in the future. Viewed in this light it make no sense to bring in the time dimension. If you make this argument you will score some debating points but will not change anyones mind. There are far better arguments that can be made.
Posted by: joan | Nov 1, 2006 6:45:41 PM
Joan,
Don Boudreaux's argument goes both ways. According to some proponents of free trade barriers, it is also unfair to buy things produced by exploited labor because then you are taking work away from U.S. workers who cannot compete with prices since higher labor and social standards make the production more costly. Thus you, because you are buying cheaper goods from abroad, are increasing U.S. unemployment.
Although you may be right with your argument, there is still at least 50% of Don Boudreaux's claim that is not invalidated by your assertion.
Posted by: Jaroslav Borovicka | Nov 1, 2006 7:07:59 PM
Adam Smith said that labor is the real measure of the price of any given commodity, even as the price is fixed via other measures of exchange. If consumers can buy goods from any source, finding the lowest price in a "free market", shouldn't labor be allowed to sell itself to the highest bidder (not to mention best conditions) as well? Shouldn't we, in other words, throw open the borders?
If we do not, then we don't believe in unrestricted trade. Labor is a commodity, same as everything else. It is, in the mind of Adam Smith, the commodity against which all else is measured. To restrict only labor (and more precisely, the laborer, whose commodity is his/her labor) makes "free trade" look like some sort of scheme to consolidate wealth in the hands of those who already have it.
Oh, wait a minute...
Posted by: Auguste | Nov 1, 2006 7:10:07 PM
Btw, when I said "price is fixed" above, I wasn't referring to "price-fixing." Bad choice of words. I was speaking of the following:
Labour therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the
man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.
What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it and
who wants to dispose of it, or exchange it for something else, is the
toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose
upon other people. What is bought with money, or with goods, is
purchased by labour, as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own
body. That money, or those goods, indeed, save us this toil. They
contain the value of a certain quantity of labour, which we exchange
for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal
quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase money that
was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by
labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and
its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for
some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of' labour
which it can enable them to purchase or command...But though labour be the real measure of the exchangeable value of all
commodities, it is not that by which their value is commonly
estimated.Posted by: Auguste | Nov 1, 2006 7:12:10 PM
It's wrong to assume (hope) that he could not change a mind with this line of reasoning. It is in fact brilliant I think.
The crux of the matter is, for the unions, to convince people to look past the issue of freedom to buy and sell as we please, look past the issue of competition ensuring quality, look past what restrictive market measures actually do to the unemployment rate and the economy overall, . . .
. . look past all of the hard evidence against unionized labor and the collectivist model in the larger sense, . . and appeal to the emotions via the moral argument.
And the moral argument is perfectly illustrated by his idea of back dating such restrictions. If exploited labor is bad, then it is bad, period.
If it is okay for our society to put a stamp of approval on such practices by keeping products from our exploitive past on the market, then it is still encouraging producers to cut corners and exploit whenever possible.
Posted by: Ray G. | Nov 1, 2006 9:20:41 PM
Perhaps this is a philisophic point that I'm raising, however, in your article above you wrote:
"If the argument against buying things produced by allegedly exploited labor is chiefly a moral one -- an argument that such things are tainted by exploitation and, hence, are unfit morally for human consumption -- then things made in the past by U.S. workers are tainted because workers in the past didn't toil under the same "protections" that workers today toil under."
The error that I see in this statement is that you are comparing something that we can not control to something that there is way to control - however unrealistic the method suggested.
You see, we can't change history - we can only observe what has already happened and pass judgment as to how correct or incorrect certain actions are. To quote something from history that we accept as incorrect and use it as a reason for why we should continue to actively use people who receive benefits for their labour that are below what we would expect is not by any means moral.
Posted by: Brandon Erik Bertelsen | Nov 1, 2006 11:29:14 PM
Did she say "NAFTA should require all countries to meet the highest labor standards now in place in any of the three nations."?
But this is a joke, the 50 states have varying levels of "labor standards" - from minimum wages to environmental and safety regulations. Should we ban interstate trade until every state is at the highest standard?
It's pretty funny to think of requiring everyone involved to meet the "highest standard". Is that even possible? One party would certainly, in its attempt to reach the high standard, pass the current high standard and create a new high standard for everyone else, ad infinitum. To solve this, Big Brother would need to step in and mandate every iota of labor standard to every single party involved in trade in all 3 countries.
Isn't the cool thing about trade is that you can exploit comparative advantages? That would be hard to do if all parties involved were marching lock-step along so many different so-called labor standard regulations.
Posted by: python | Nov 2, 2006 1:21:05 AM
Brilliant!!!! ;-)
Posted by: Chris Meisenzahl | Nov 2, 2006 10:21:42 AM
The use of labor standards as an excuse to block the free trade of goods and services across borders (whether they are internaltional or internal state borders) is really a red herring.
I appreciate Auguste's attempt to explain the price as being determined by the input of labor. This is the belief amongst many individuals, especially marxists. Labor is not a determinant of price, as the classical economist posited. The Austrian school, beginning with Carl Menger, have shown that subjective value by consumers is the true determinant of price. For example, let's assume it takes 1 hour to produce the classic widget and the labor cost is $5/hour. If consumers believe that the widget is not worth $5 it doesn't matter how much labor cost, consumers will not pay $5.
Labor cost is really determinant in whether a business is can stay in business or not. If someone can be more efficient and/or cheaper for that particular item then it allows consumers to get it at a price they consider a good value. More often than not, there will be individuals willing to purchase an item at a higher price, but Econ 101 shows that fewer widgets will be purchased at a higher price. Even a monopoly cannot charge any price it wants if consumers are not willing to purchase an item, they have to cover labor, capital costs, etc and they aren't in the business to just break even.
What she is suggesting is similar to the airline industry and the trucking industry prior to deregulation (again another red herring, but thats for another post). If you can limit out side competition, a business may be willing to take a loss on labor cost if it can pass the costs onto consumers, whether they purchase the same amount of items doesn't matter. Basically it's just another way to provide rent seekers with the ability to get their way.
In regards to time, Dr. Boudreaux's point is completely valid. Lets use auto industry as an example, because they are so heavily unionized. If I as a union leader can get the government to outlaw the purchase of used cars, because the standard of labor was much consider less advantageous to the workers. It would force consumers of vehicles to make other arrangements. 1) Either buy a brand new car because the other is not salvagable, 2) Repair the car at a cost that might be more than it would have been acceptable prior to this or 3) Increase riderships of public transportation. Either way, the unions win. How? Unions are heavily entrenched in auto parts business and the public transporation business.
Posted by: Matt | Nov 2, 2006 12:31:24 PM
Wow.
This has to be one of the more pathetic attempts at justifying exploitation that I have ever seen.
Let's consider the two claims here:
(1) "Why not prevent Americans from buying things such as antique furniture or vintage automobiles or houses constructed before World War II?"
Actually, there is a good argument to prevent exactly this. For example, we might consider making the sale of lamp shades made from human skin under Hitler illegal.
But there is at least one major reason not to do this. Administrability. Say one thought this was desirable. Are we going to search everyone's houses and confiscate the things they own for this period? Only when they try to sell it on eBay? Without regard to subsequent attachment of sentimental value to certain objects and heirlooms? Obviously, one could have a moral problem with the consumption of products made in exploitive conditions, but see the moral costs of confiscating long-held property as even higher.
Here is a second point. Causation is often an important element when considering morality. There is a much less plausible linkage between our current use of goods made under exploitive conditions from before World War II and items made closer to the present. No matter what our present consumption patterns, we cannot influence past exploitation. It has already occurred. In contrast, when you buy goods from institutions engaged in exploitation in the present, you are subsidizing and enabling their activities. That is, you along with other consumers are a cause of the exploitation. But for your willingness to buy such products produced under such conditions, the conditions would not continue. In contrast, the market for goods made before WWII has no important impact in terms of subsidizing exploitation.
(2) "Why should today's house-construction workers have to compete with houses produced by their exploited brethren of 75 or 100 years ago?"
Why not? Do you think that a house built 75 to 100 years ago is a very good substitute for a house built today? Probably not without major renovation. I have no problem letting builders compete with old houses; I think they will do just fine with improved technology and modern building methods.
Second, these houses do not really "compete" with current construction to a large degree. New houses are built because they are needed. Presumably, they are needed despite the existence of these older houses. What we are concerned about is that competition will either (1) create a race to the bottom in working conditions or (2) lead to massive unemployment, to the extent that one group is prevented from joining the race to the bottom, while another group is allowed. The existence of old homes does create a race to the bottom, because such a race is prohibited by laws regulating working conditions and old houses are not always a great substitute for construction workers. They don't lead to massive unemployment in the construction industry either, because many individuals want the features and convenience and superior design of newer homes built with newer technology and because quantitatively, there are not enough of these older houses around.
So lets review. Don has fallen flat on his face in a pathetic attempt to justify exploitive labor conditions by reference to temporal competition. The bottom-line with respect to morality is that if you knowingly purchase goods produced in exploitive environments, you are morally implicated because you are subsidizing those environments. The bottom-line with respect to whether it is "unfair" to expose current workers to competition from old products, is that we have no reason to think that old products are necessarily very good substitutes for new products and we certainly have no reason to think that competition with those products will lead to a race to the bottom.
Overall, Don's argument is a classic strawman argument. Something that I frankly think should be below the chair of GMU's economics department. He implies that to be consistent, those who have a moral problem with exploitation, must treat temporal competition the same as geographic competition. But as has been shown, this is simply not true. Maybe Don should think before he blogs, because it is not very difficult to produce compelling reasons to treat temporal and geographic situations differently. In general, if you think you have an argument that the other side must engage in absurd and impractical policy measures in order to be consistent, that is usually an indication that you should think about those arguments more carefully, not spew out the first thoughts that come to your mind. Logical consistency does not in fact require that two different things be treated in a like manner
-Ragerz, the ex-libertarian
Posted by: Ragerz | Nov 2, 2006 2:46:27 PM
Ragerz,
Re; "But for your willingness to buy such products produced under such conditions, the conditions would not continue."
True, because the jobs would simply vanish. Again, I would like to hear what the so called "exploited" workers have to say about it. My guess is that they would rather have these jobs then not have them.
Posted by: Randy | Nov 2, 2006 2:53:50 PM
Ragerz,
To continue, let's take a local example. There are people who make a lot more for doing roughly the same job that I do. They have higher pay, better benefits, nicer offices, etc. Does that make me an exploited worker? Perhaps - certainly some would say so. But I work for a small business and my boss can't really afford to pay me more than he already does. And if some moralist group convinces our customers to stop doing business with my boss because they don't feel that my benefits are high enough, then I'm just out of work.
Yes, I'd like to make more and have better benefits, but those aren't real options. Don't you think that morality has to have some basis in reality? How is it moral to put me out of work because my working conditions don't match your idealistic vision?
Posted by: Randy | Nov 2, 2006 3:17:49 PM
Rangerz,
Subsidies are given when there are RESTRICTION placed on free trade.
Furthermore, since this blog is free to post on, it appears to me that you intend to exploit the efforts of the people managing this site.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 2, 2006 3:19:05 PM
I have had a similar arguments many times. One ended with, "So you are just going to buy the company line?" My response back was...I am not buying anything. To assume that I am not a rational thinking individual who has made a conscious decision to work where I work and do I what I do is insulting.
The argument about exploitation reminds me that employees are held at gun point to work where they do. This certainly is not true in Mexico, nor is it even true in China. It may be true that a Chinese citzen has to ask permission to move to the area around where they work, but I have never heard of any armed guards walking around Wal-mart forcing the employees to work there. Exploitation in and of itself is a strawman.
I do what I do because I believe that if I were to go anywhere else I would not be better off. Now if something that I believe is better I will likely move to that new job. If anything the union and labor standards keep individuals from excelling in jobs, they require that everyone be paid the exact same thing, they require that no single individual be awarded singularly for excellence and they encourage metiocrity.
These people who are being "exploited", to further Randy's point, made a conscious decision moving from subsistance farming (mainly in Mexico and Asia) to a job that they felt would provide a better life for them. As competition for good employees increase there is an increase in standards. If an employer wants to attract the best employees they will make the conditions better, they will offer compensating benefits, etc. I believe there was a 20/20 some time ago and it talked about two steel mills in Birmingham, AL. One non union shop offered great benefits and the conditions were much better than the union shop across town. The non-union shop mill had better productivity, the employees willingly worked harder and felt that the employer took care of them more.
If you impose "standards" that would harm other countries workers, who's really exploiting who?
Posted by: Matt | Nov 2, 2006 3:32:08 PM
Joan,
The argument works because raising future demand for a product (by allowing re-sale markets for goods once produced under inferior labor conditions) increases demand for the good today.
Posted by: ben | Nov 2, 2006 5:49:31 PM
Guess what my wacky libertarian friends from another planet. Exploitation does exist. Your attempts to define it out of existence does not change that.
But of course, child labor makes children better off you say. Otherwise they would starve! The children should be grateful that they get to work 16 hour days. They should be grateful to the rich people who give them work out of the kindness of their hearts.
But to say that the children should be grateful supposes a baseline of entitlement to absolutely nothing to the point of where allowing starvation is acceptable, rather than a baseline entitlement of access to plentiful food, shelter, and education.
Here is what exploitation means. Assume a baseline entitlement. Say, everyone is entitled to have some rest and leisure time (assuming that social resources exist that would make this possible), safe working conditions, basic food, basic shelter, and basic necessities. Exploitation is the process by which one uses another's lack of access to basic necessities in order to control them and use them for one's own purposes. Instead of interacting with them as an end, one uses them as a means.
Think about it this way. When we are born, none of us has a superior moral right to the social resources of this earth. Obviously. None of us have done anything at that point to earn anything. But it should be obvious that one's position with respect to access to those resources is far from equal at birth. These inequalities often and usually follow one throughout life. Thus, one's employer's superior access to social resources is not merely a product of his or her own effort, but also his unearned starting position and the unearned advantages he has been granted due to his position throughout life.
Whether we think that it is best to not disturb these inequalities too much, wouldn't we be crazy to say that a child born to parents who have nothing deserves absolutely nothing such that it is acceptable that they starve? That even with abundant social resources in existence, they are entitled to nothing?
Obviously, the baseline of entitlement should be much higher than nothing. Rather than being grateful to the factory owners who would work a child for 16-hour days, it would be preferable to question the entitlement of those factory owners to the resources they control.
Exploitation, or using someone as a means rather than an end, is morally despicable. Period.
Regardless, Don's original argument equating geographic exploitation with temporal exploitation was very flawed for the reasons shown in my previous comment.
Posted by: Ragerz | Nov 2, 2006 7:55:49 PM
Another general point.
Some of you are suggesting that there are only two choices. Either jobs with exploitive working conditions or no jobs at all. This is a false choice from a social perspective, although that is exactly the only choice left to workers when they are forced into races to the bottom. You can have jobs AND decent working conditions through regulations that prevent a race to the bottom.
Posted by: Ragerz | Nov 2, 2006 8:48:20 PM
Ragerz says "You can have jobs AND decent working conditions through regulations that prevent a race to the bottom."
The conflict here is between offering workers the largest number of employers competing for them .... and deliberately reducing the number of employers in exchange for political protection of jobs. Now, ask yourself: who is more likely to protect the interests of a worker: the employee themselves or some politician who is too busy to examine the details of every job, but who has instead established rules for everyone at everytime in every place?
Consider that some employees may choose to take larger risks in return for larger pay, or better working hours, or more vacation. When everyone is forced to do X, the bell curve of human nature gets shaved off at the ends.
It's always best to allow people to make their own decisions over their own lives. You may think you know better, and perhaps for a few people you're right. But for most everyone else, you're wrong.
Posted by: Russell Nelson | Nov 3, 2006 2:40:07 AM
Ragerz says "But of course, child labor makes children better off you say."
In fact, no, I don't say that. I say instead "Children have always worked. Idle children is a result of the asendancy of free-market capitalism. That capitalism has not ascended everywhere is the cause of continued child labor."
Posted by: Russell Nelson | Nov 3, 2006 2:44:45 AM
Ragerz says "we might consider making the sale of lamp shades made from human skin under Hitler illegal."
I call Godwin!
Posted by: Russell Nelson | Nov 3, 2006 2:47:02 AM
Ragerz says "The bottom-line with respect to morality is that if you knowingly purchase goods produced in exploitive environments, you are morally implicated because you are subsidizing those environments."
Um, no, you're assuming the the workers are idiots (which is, I'm afraid, at the core of worker-protection arguments). You should assume instead that they have made the best choice available to them, which has resulted in the least amount of exploitation. In that case, NOT purchasing those goods would be immoral because it would increase the worker's exploitation.
Posted by: Russell Nelson | Nov 3, 2006 2:53:12 AM
"Say, everyone is entitled to have some rest and leisure time (assuming that social resources exist that would make this possible), safe working conditions, basic food, basic shelter, and basic necessities."
Guess what wacky idealist from another planet. You need to get out more. Travel a bit in the third world, and you'll quickly come to realize that this rosy-colored view of the world is a pipedream.
Posted by: Henri Hein | Nov 3, 2006 3:14:53 AM
I thought I would briefly respond to a few objections.
Nelson: I am all for workers making their own decisions within certain boundaries. Boundaries prevent what is known in the literature as a "race to the bottom."
If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, then we would have to legalize steriod use in sports. Who are we to paternalistically say that athletes do not know best with respect to their own preparations for competition? But of course, we do say we know best, and athletes as a class are better off for it. If we allowed steroids, it would follow that all the most successful athletes would use them. Competition would drive those who would otherwise prefer not to use them to use them. This would be a race to the bottom.
It is clearly and obviously superior to regulate competition to prevent harmful effects. We do not want athletes destroying their bodies for short-term athletic gains. Likewise, we do not want workers destroying their bodies and spirits for short-term monetary gains. If we do not regulate competition, in both the athletic and economic sphere, this is precisely what will happen.
Anyway, if you want to make a serious response to my arguments, you are going to have to address the race to the bottom issue. This, you have thus far failed to do.
Hein: Why is having access to basic necessities a "pipe-dream?" Because there are not enough resources to go around? If so, then I propose we immediately end all "conspicious consumption" and direct those resources to more basic needs. After all, any sensible person would agree that one should take care of basics first.
I don't think we have a resource problem though. Not given the possibilities of modern technology. It is not that it is physically impossible to provide basics for everyone. The problem is rather one of distribution and misplaced priorities.
Posted by: Ragerz | Nov 3, 2006 5:08:30 AM
ragerz: "Rather than being grateful to the factory owners who would work a child for 16-hour days, it would be preferable to question the entitlement of those factory owners to the resources they control."
And so what do you propose to help those children reach a better life? That the world stop purchasing the products of those factories? And watch as those children starve?
Do you really believe much of the products we purchase at WalMart were made by children working 16 hour days?
Posted by: JohnDewey | Nov 3, 2006 5:11:33 AM
Nelson writes:
"In fact, no, I don't say that. I say instead 'Children have always worked. Idle children is a result of the asendancy of free-market capitalism. That capitalism has not ascended everywhere is the cause of continued child labor.'"
This is simply false as a historical matter. Maybe you should actually familiarize yourself with history, rather than assuming that history is whatever best fits your ideology. It is not the "free-market" that ended child labor. It is government action first regulating then outlawing the practice combined with government-provided compulsory schooling that ended child labor.
The most audacious claim made by a serious neoclassical economist in favor of the free market ending child labor is that when laws outlawing child labor were passed, the use of child labor was decreasing. In other words, it is conceded that many children were still engaged in child labor (slavery)when it was outlawed, only somewhat less than before.
But if it is wrong for 10 million children to be enslaved in a system of child labor, then it is equally wrong for 5 million children to be so enslaved. That the best you can say for your supposedly "free market" is that it merely reduced child labor (really slavery) demonstrates a compelling case for government regulation to prevent a race to the bottom.
In the end, I am all in favor of capitalism and a truly free market. Where a free market is defined as one free from any coercive races to the bottom. One must recognize that only through wise restraints, are men made free. That this basic idea has yet to be comprehended by libertarians is rather amazing. (Somehow, they recognize that physical violence must be restrained, but fail to recognize that other forms of coercion likewise need to be restrained. Bizarre. I consider myself more freedom-loving than any mere libertarian.)
-Ragerz, the ex-libertarian
Posted by: Ragerz | Nov 3, 2006 5:29:12 AM
JohnDewey,
First, I would never allow anyone to starve. Instead, I would redistribute resources to prevent starvation, rather than allow factory owner X to exploit the children of Y. Simulataneously ensuring their are adequate incentives for most factories to continue running, but under humane conditions and using adult labor.
Second, the conditions under which the employees of most suppliers of Wal-Mart work is not something I have thoroughly studied. I am talking about principles here, rather than empirically specific particulars. The principle is that exploitation does exist, and should not be referred to as "exploitation" as if it doesn't.
-Ragerz, the ex-libertarian
Posted by: Ragerz | Nov 3, 2006 5:38:32 AM
Ragerz,
Again, morality must have a basis in reality. Here's the reality, there are seven billion people in the world and many of them are in competition for the same jobs. There is no easy moral out. protectionism is the use of political power to favor one group over another. But non-protectionism is exactly the same thing.
It comes down to the question; Is competition moral? The idealist says no - we must eliminate competition to create a world of equals. The pragmatist says yes - competition is a fact of human existance, and we should take advantage of it to drive the human race to greater achievement.
Posted by: Randy | Nov 3, 2006 5:38:41 AM
Randy,
First of all, libertarians are not pragmatists. I am a pragmatist, I know.
Second. I am not in favor of protectionism. I am in favor of coordinated regulation to prevent races to the bottom. If temporary protectionism as a tool of diplomacy is necessary to create incentives for other countries to engage in coordination, that is completely acceptable. Better to have some protectionism than allow one's citizens subsidize immoral and exploitive practices.
Third, a pragmatist would generally say we don't have to choose between some binary conception of either competition or no competition. That you frame the problem thus leads to question whether you are a pragmatist.
We should have competition, but with rules that define the terms of competition. Just as you have rules against steroid use in sports, you need rules that prevent races to the bottom in trade.
Competition can be a very useful thing when channeled properly. Even libertarians recognizes that there must be some rules. For example, absent absolute necessity, competition does not justify murdering someone to gain greater access to scarce resources. (Even though this is a very natural form of competition very common among animals.) The problem with libertarians is they want to arbitrarily limit such rules, and thereby enable injustice.
I think that enslaving children in a system of child labor is not all that much better than murder, but a pure libertarian would arbitrarily allow this form of coercion, even while preventing other forms of coercion. That is simply contradiction and hypocrisy.
I am very much for free trade. But with a big emphasis on free. It is hardly unrealistic (or as you suggest, lacking a "basis in reality") to prohibit immoral and exploitive practices through regulation while allowing competition subject to reasonable regulations channeling that competition to moral ends. It is only through wise restraints, that men are made free. Unlimited competition is equivalent to the law of the jungle -- an extreme outcome that no pragmatist would accept.
Posted by: Ragerz | Nov 3, 2006 6:56:57 AM
Ragerz,
You've heard the arguments before, I'm sure, but you should probably read (or reread, if that's the case) the editorial [ http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0802/p09s02-coop.html ] from the Christian Science Monitor from August 2, 2005. Go on, check it out!
Have you read it yet? Good! Now there's another matter that I'd like to see some clarification on. You wrote the following at 5:29 this morning: "In the end, I am all in favor of capitalism and a truly free market. Where a free market is defined as one free from any coercive races to the bottom. One must recognize that only through wise restraints, are men made free. That this basic idea has yet to be comprehended by libertarians is rather amazing. (Somehow, they recognize that physical violence must be restrained, but fail to recognize that other forms of coercion likewise need to be restrained. Bizarre. I consider myself more freedom-loving than any mere libertarian.)"
Then, a mere nine minutes later you wrote this: "First, I would never allow anyone to starve. Instead, I would redistribute resources to prevent starvation, rather than allow factory owner X to exploit the children of Y. Simulataneously ensuring their are adequate incentives for most factories to continue running, but under humane conditions and using adult labor."
"Wise restaints" [the wiser the better, eh commrade, Ragerz?]! "[R]edistribute resources...[s]imulataneously ensuring [there] are adequate incentives for most factories to continue running" [Does you also mandate preferences and utility functions of individuals in your centrally planned Utopia, Ragerz?] Can you explain how this is all supposed to work in your "truly free market with restraints"?
Posted by: lowcountryjoe | Nov 3, 2006 7:28:56 AM
Ragerz,
Re; "We should have competition, but with rules that define the terms of competition."
Well, that is the problem, isn't it. It is the nature of true competitors to attempt to bend the rules to their own advantage - and once in power, to fix the rules in such a way as to continue the advantage. In this way, the rules themselves become a part of the competition.
It could be said that the trends created by new technologies has allowed those without power to effectively change the rules. Nationalism and Intellectual Property, for example, are rules designed to protect one group at the expense of another - and both are on the verge of being obsolete. I'm thinking that your insistence on rules is really just an attempt to salvage the old rules - the rules you found favorable. The world changes - the pragmatist adapts.
Posted by: Randy | Nov 3, 2006 9:57:12 AM
P.S. I agree that not all Libertarians are Pragmatists. But many are.
Posted by: Randy | Nov 3, 2006 9:59:06 AM
I quote Thomas DiLorenzo:
"The shorter workweek was entirely a capitalist invention and not the result of government policy or labor union pressure. As labor productivity increased...and wages rose, more and more workers could afford to work fewer hours and still support themselves and their families. As capitalism grew, and as more and more new markets were created, the competition between employers for workers became more and more intense. One way in which employers competed-and compete today-is to offer workers shorter hours. Once a few employers started recruiting the best employees in this way, others followed suit. Those who did not were left at a competitive disadvantage. With rivals offering fewer hours of work per week, those employers who did not do so were compelled by competition to offer a wage premium to get employees to work longer hours. Either way-longer hours or higher pay-they put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. This is how America has gove from an average eighty-hour workweek to one of less than forty hours.
"Competition in labor markets is also the reason why child labor has essentially been eliminated. Young people originally worked in the harsh setting of factories because they had to as a matter of their and their families' survival. But as workers became more and more productive and better paid...they could afford to keep their children at home and in school instead of sending them to work. Legislation banning child labor only codified what the free market had already created."
Regarding child labor in agriculture he continues:
"...mechanized agriculture... made agricultural workers more productive. Consequently, fewer workers were required, which reduced the need to have children work in the fields. Capitalism saved many children from back breaking agricultural work."
The rest of the world is going through this process. Putting restraints on trade only slows the process because they are not able to better their lot.
Regarding sports and steroids. Bad analogy. First of all government needs to stay out of the debate. Baseball is a great example of how sporting leagues lose credibility when they don't enforce their own rules regarding steroids. For the most part it's not about what the drugs do to the body, but the competitive advantage that they provide participants. The NFL has a strict enforcement and it boosts it's credibility. The international anti-doping agency does it without the force of government and they do it again for the competitive advantage that the drugs provide. They have every right to set down rules.
Lets expand this out even further. Let's say that the Canadian Football League became more popular than the NFL. They have different rules. Would it be right for the NFL to say to them hey, they aren't playing by the same rules, their field is 110 yards, etc and that gives them a competitive advantage. In sports rules are laid out. If a player doesn't like them they can leave and not play. Just like an employee who thinks they are getting ripped off can leave and go somewhere else.
Race to the bottom, huh? Its amazing that we don't use out houses and even people who receive welfare have cable. Its also amazing that most of the people who are in the bottom quartile also move out of it as they gain experience. It's more like a race to the top.
Posted by: Matt | Nov 3, 2006 10:27:31 AM
Randy:
Interesting response."[T]he rules themselves become a part of the competition."
I agree with this statement. Rules are part subject to competition at a meta-level. That is called democracy. For example, it certainly would be possible for athletes who want to use steriods to advocate for a rule change. They will sometimes succeed, but often will not.
However, at another level, rules also regulate competition. And that regulation can increase freedom.
"I'm thinking that your insistence on rules is really just an attempt to salvage the old rules - the rules you found favorable."
This is incorrect. I am a pragmatist. The temporal origin of a rule is less important to me than its effects.
With respect to your assertions about intellectual property and nationalism becoming obsolete, that is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, I will briefly address why I think both assertions are wrong. As much as I would like changes in intellectual property, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has been incorporated into the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement since 1994. This essentially requires countries, including the United States, to maintain intellectual property regimes. I think the TRIPS agreement is a bad one, because it reduces our flexibility and ability to change intellectual property law. But it does guarantee one thing - intellectual property will not be obsolete any time soon. It is rather entrenched. Second, the idea that nationalism is an idea of the past is also false. This is illustrated by the United State's and European Union's defiance of WTO rulings. We are not going to be living under one-world government anytime soon. Further, it should be noted that any of these international agreements can be unilaterally abandoned by the President without the consent of Congress, as was illustrated when President Carter unilaterally abandoned a defense treaty with Taiwan that was fully ratified by the Senate. The United States need not be part of the WTO or any other international organization. We are free to withdraw and impose any conditions upon trade that we would like. More likely, the United States could use the threat of withdrawal to ensure the adoption of rules that it favors. Especially since domestically, challenging an international organization like the WTO would likely be very popular.
Overall, I don't see what basis you have for asserting that either intellectual property rights or nationalism are becoming obsolete.
Matt:
You quote someone who writes: "Legislation banning child labor only codified what the free market had already created."Query: Is the claim here that legislation had no effect on the utilization of child labor?? If this is the claim, it is clearly false. The most that can be said is that the incidence of child labor was decreasing when laws outlawing child labor were passed, not that it was eliminated before they were passed.
Anyway, I am not against capitalism and free markets. Only, unlike libertarians, I take freedom seriously.
Second. I don't see a huge difference between the NFL and government. Indeed the relationship between NFL and players is similar to the relationship between government and citizen, with players being "fined" or otherwise punished for misbehavior. The point is, that the competition between players is enhanced by having a third party set rules regulating that competition. It is reasonable and perhaps advantageous for that third party, who has the potential of exercising coercive power, to be a private sector actor in some contexts, but it makes more sense for them to be a public sector actor in others.
And Matt, I am so glad that you think that America is a decent place to live for those on the bottom. I think you are making it sound a lot better than it really is. But regardless, what you are defending is a system with, *gasp* (1) a minimum wage, (2) incentives to keep working hours reasonable (i.e. overtime), (3) regulations for workers safety (4) laws prohibiting child labor, and so on.
So, to the extent that you are defending the system we have here in America, you are defending a system of capitalism with regulations that prevent a race to the bottom. Thank you for your defense of my position, although I suspect it was accidental.
lowcountryjoe:
"Can you explain how this is all supposed to work in your "truly free market with restraints'"?Yeah, its called allowing competition but with reasonable regulations. A reasonable regulation does not have costs wholly disproportionate to the benefits it provides.
As far as redistributing resources, this is to provide individuals with basic necessities and thereby increase their negotiating power and minimize their vulnerability to exploitation. Individuals with resources do not need as much protection from exploitation, and that, incidentally, would decrease the need for regulation.
So a free market, as I define it, is a market where people make decisions free from the coercion of others. This freedom comes from regulation. We are all made free from wise regulation, and any libertarian will acknowledge this in the context of physical coercion. Under the law, I lose my natural freedom to use violence against others to get what I want. At the same time, I am protected from the violence of others. Laws preventing violence are what would be called a "wise restraint," because it is a restriction that increases freedom. If we generalize from physical violence to other forms of coercion, it becomes clear that we become more free with wise regulation. Take the factory owner who does not wish to employee children. That his competitor does will leave him in a position that he must choose to do so as well, or leave the business. In either case, the situation will be that all factories will make use of child labor. On the other side, children, who are especially vulnerable to exploitation and coercion, will be basically forced to work at factory X. When someone is forced to work against their will, this is called slavery. Everyone is made more free by laws prohibiting child labor. Factory owners no longer are forced to reduce their standards to the least ethical among them. Children are now free to go to school and get an education so they can have a career that more matches their abilities and inclinations, and not incidentally, gives them greater negotiating power than they have vis a vis factory owners as children.
Posted by: Ragerz | Nov 3, 2006 4:54:10 PM
Ragerz,
My thought regarding the obsolescence of nationalism and intellectual property is that they are more and more commonly ignored. Local labor and environmental agreements are bypassed. Knockoffs are common. Software and movies are mass produced "illegally". Thus the "rules", though likely to remain on the books for some time, are rapidly becoming irrelevant.
Posted by: Randy | Nov 3, 2006 5:48:39 PM
If your right, maybe Hollywood, the pharmaceutical industry, those firms that depend on the snob value of their trademarks for revenue, the recording industry, and the software industry should all pack their bags and call it quits.
Somehow, I suspect they have a different perception of the situation than you.
The situation is different than your suggesting. Different countries devote different levels of resources to intellecutal property enforcement, depending on how much they perceive a national benefit to such enforcement. Thus, while IP enforcement in India used to not be very good, it has stepped up as India has found itself with domestic constituencies that benefit from more robust IP protection. The same story is likely with respect to China and other countries that do not devote huge amounts of resources to IP enforcement.
With respect to local labor regulations, maybe GM, Ford, and Toyota should start violating labor standards in the United States, given the obsolecense of these laws. We will see what federal and state prosecutors think about that and what the executives who end up in prison over intentional violations of these obsolete laws think from their prison cells.
Of course, any and every law is subject to being broken. Including laws against physical violence, including murder. That doesn't render the law insignificant. And if you are making the point that there is an unfortunate regulatory gap due to inadequate worker, environmental, health and safety regulations being included in the WTO agreement, I am completely sympathetic.
But one should be under no illusion that these problems are all that intractable. Just as the economic environment has changed and adapted to globalization, our laws and regulations will adapt likewise. All we need is strong leadership in the United States, and we can ensure regulations protecting workers, the environment, health and safety and other concerns are adopted throughout the whole world through the WTO mechanism. That is, just as we leveraged our national power to ensure the protection of intellectual property worldwide, we can leverage our national power to ensure the protection of workers, the environment, and health and safety worldwide. And you know what, I suspect the European Union will be on our side when we push for this.
Posted by: Ragerz | Nov 3, 2006 7:27:05 PM
Ragerz says "Only, unlike libertarians, I take freedom seriously."
Okay, now I know not to take Ragerz seriously.
Posted by: Russell Nelson | Nov 5, 2006 2:10:26 AM
Ragerz says "If we generalize from physical violence to other forms of coercion, it becomes clear that we become more free with wise regulation."
That's a teflon slope. People who don't like free markets can use that to label anything as coercion. "Didn't choose wisely in the marketplace? Oh, advertising must have coerced you." Coercion is physical violence; any other use is misuse.
Posted by: Russell Nelson | Nov 5, 2006 2:15:10 AM
Your stingy definition of coercion is completely irrational. When one takes advantages of another's reduced opportunity set to control and use that person, that is coercion.
The fact that you have chosen an arbitrarily stingy definition of coercion is precisely why it is safe to assert that libertarians do not value freedom. That libertarians defend child labor, instead of seeing it for what it is, a form of slavery not chosen by the child who has no alternatives, demonstrates the pernicious results of your arbitrary definition.
More significantly, it illustrates why libertarians claims to value freedom should not be taken seriously. Ultimately, libertarians do not really morally deserve to be protected by government from the law of the jungle (i.e. physical or other forms of coercion) due to their ridiculous and self-centered conceptions. You plead for government to protect your life, liberty, and property (precisely as you arbitrarily define those terms) yet think it is outrageous to similarly protect others from the sorts of coercion that they are vulnerable to.
"That's a teflon slope. People who don't like free markets can use that to label anything as coercion."
That SOME people may abuse a concept by giving it an unreasonably large scope does not license you abuse it likewise by giving it an unreasonable narrow scope. You are no better than the free-market haters your so vociferiously critize.
There is a better alternative. You can't prevent others from abusing a concept, but you can refrain from doing it yourself. And you can join with reasonable and pragmatic people who would prevent the concept from being abused in either direction.
Posted by: Ragerz | Nov 5, 2006 2:55:35 AM
Ragerz,
Re; "That libertarians defend child labor, instead of seeing it for what it is, a form of slavery not chosen by the child who has no alternatives..."
Its good that you recognize the lack of alternatives. That's a start...
Posted by: Randy | Nov 5, 2006 5:20:37 AM
Lack of alternatives ONLY if we fail to enact regulations to protect their interests.
From an individual perspective, an individual may not have any alternatives. From a social perspective, we can ensure that they do.
If I point a gun at your head, you will only have one realistic alternative. To do whatever I say. That you do not have any alternatives as an individual in this situation does not prevent government from increasing your choices, by, for example, passing a law that makes it illegal for me to point a gun at your head.
Just as government can increase your alternatives in the coercive situation described above, it can increase the alternatives to children who would otherwise become part of a system of slavery.
And you claim to value freedom! What about the freedom of children not to be coerced into a system of child labor/slavery? Oh, THAT freedom does not matter to you. It is really amazing what you libertarians will defend. And you wonder why you are politically marginalized. And it will always be so, in a democracy. Because most people value freedom more than libertarians.
-Ragerz, the ex-libertarian
Posted by: Ragerz | Nov 5, 2006 3:39:54 PM
Ragerz-
DiLorenzo points out that the laws regarding child labor laws didn't impact agriculture, only industrial work. That's why I quoted him further when he showed that as mechanization in agriculture eventually made it unnecessary for child labor even in agriculture.
Regarding sports. Let's assume for the moment that government doesn't regulate steriod use. The NFL unlike the government is a VOLUNTARY association. If another organization comes along and has different rules regarding they could allow their players to use steriods. I would venture that there would be some credibility issues. The XFL is a good example of competition within sports. They allowed harder hits and other rule changes. With the government there is no competition. They make the rules, not one can compete with them.
Regarding this idea of coercion is the idea that government protect people from use of force by others. A factory own can not force someone to work, they cannot chain them to the table. Lets say a person doesn't like what he is doing, by liberty and property they can not force that person to work for them. It must be completely voluntary. I work at a place because I CHOOSE to, not because someone FORCES me.
My point regarding how people live is that things have gotten better, but it wasn't because government mandated change. Cars became less expensive because Ford understood that if he could make a car cheaper he could make up for the profit per car in volume. Because people no longer have outhouses and because they have cable is because these things have become cheaper.
Your idea of freedom is subjected to personal choices by a government. Because I don't like the fact that my neighbor smokes, shouldn't mean that because its good for them that government should tell them not to smoke. The idea that an employee can walk away from a job if they don't like conditions that work means that they can do so. To force an employer to change is coercion. People must be responsible for themselves. As good workers leave employers will make conditions better. They lose money and time of productivity as employees have to be retrained and brought up to speed.
Posted by: Matt | Nov 5, 2006 4:50:14 PM
Matt,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
First, with respect to child labor laws, that they wrongly exempted agriculture does not mean they had no effect in factories. It did have that effect. Further, your speculation that unregulated markets might have similar results in the absense of regulation is problematic for two reasons. First, child labor (slavery) is unacceptable. It needs to end now, not tomorrow when you "promise" it will no longer be economical. It is morally despicable to USE other people. This is precisely what immoral factory owners were doing to children. Second, that child labor became uneconomical in agriculture does not imply that it would become uneconomical in other settings absent child labor laws. The fact is that mechanization has greatly reduced ALL employment in agriculture. In contrast, mechanization INCREASED the demand for employment in factories.
To continue the NFL discussion, it should be noted that no private organization could legalize steroid use for its athletes. So, the XFL or whatever has no chance of competing with the NFL on that dimension, due to the fact that steroid use illegal. This, I submit is a good thing. Overall, in the general case, it doesn't matter to me whether a government or private organization makes and enforces with coercion the rule against steroid use. In both cases, the rules are backed up by coercion, supported by the government. The NFL is only able to "fine" players and regulate football because the government enforces the sort of contractual provision that allows such private coercion to occur. In the specific case, a private organization or public organization might be better suited to regulate a particular area.
Regardless, anti-steroid use policies, whether enforced by an private or public organization, exhibit the sorts of thing that should be accomplished through regulation. That is, it prevents a race to the bottom. That you are bringing up this private versus public organization thing really distracts from the main idea. Anti-steroid use is not something that athletes can freely choose to do. That the organization the exercises coercion over them is private rather than public is not that signficant from the perspective of the athlete. The point is this: Losing the freedom to use steroids actually increases freedom for athletes in general. Address THAT point, if you are able.
"I work at a place because I CHOOSE to, not because someone FORCES me."
First, changing jobs is only a partial solution. Jobs are often scarce and it makes you look bad to exercise this choice. The question always arises when an employee leaves one employer. Why did you leave? This is the sort of choice that others will expect you to justify.
The decision to work at a particular place is not the same as having the ability to choose the conditions of employment. In a competitive environment, neither you nor your employer can choose to make your working conditions easier IF doing so leads to a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. So, what is the point of leaving factory X if all factories are forced by competition to offer similarly bad working conditions?
Before labor laws came into effect, employers would use the extreme leverage that they gained by offering employment to coerce employees into working extreme hours in unsafe working conditions. Even today, employers use the leverage they have in the employment context to get employees to sign away their rights. That employees do not understand what they are signing away means that employers don't really compete on this dimension. Why would I turn down an offer of employment over having to sign away my rights IF most every other employers will likewise require to sign such a contract.
Do you really call it freedom when people end up working so many hours that they do not have time for themselves or their families or their hobbies? I don't call that freedom. Freedom is about the ability to make choices. But people in these sorts of situations do not have very meaningful choices in the absence of reasonable regulation preventing them from "competing" against each other in a race to work the most inhumane number of hours possible under severe working conditions.
Just as athletes benefit from regulations preventing them from being coerced into competing in their ability to consume steroids, workers benefit from not being coerced into competing on their ability to endure inhumane working conditions.
As for YOU in particular, you just happen to be lucky. If you like your job, good for you. You don't work in a sweat shop AND you don't have to compete in an environment without regulation. There are such things as sweat shops, inhumane working conditions, and child labor. And they are coercive. That you don't experience these things personally only establishes either (1) the regulations we have in America allow you to take these things for granted or (2) you are not of the class that is vulnerable to this sort of coercion.
"People must be responsible for themselves."
I disagree with this. People should take responsibility, but no one in this society is responsible for themselves. That you depend on others who have skills that you don't renders you not responsible for yourself. That you depend on government to protect you from physical violence renders you not responsible for yourself. That you received an education from others renders you not responsible for yourself. That you had parents who either took care of you well or badly renders you not responsible for yourself. That you depend on the government to enforce your reliance/dependence on others when you make contracts with them renders you not responsible for yourself.
We live in a society. We are responsible for each other. If you don't like it, if you are too selfish to actually be helpful in some small way, may I suggest that you leave society and its protections. Why does society owe YOU protection from physical violence or enforcement of the agreements you enter? Why are you entitled??
Libertarians don't actually want to leave society. They want to use it. They want to warp it. They want society to protect them from those threats that concern them while leaving others vulnerable to the sorts of coercion that they feel they personally are not likely to face.
Why should we protect you?? Why don't you just take personal responsibility for your own physical safety? After all, you said, "[p]eople must be responsible for themselves." Are libertarians not people? And if the guy you paid to deliver your food doesn't show up, maybe you should only work with people you know and trust.
Ultimately, the libertarian does not make a very sympathetic figure. You whine and cry about your own freedom and are so quick to scream "coercion" at even the most reasonable regulations. All the while turning your backs on the freedom of others.
-Ragerz, the very ex-libertarian
Posted by: Ragerz | Nov 5, 2006 9:52:22 PM
Ragerz-
A few things:
In response to your most recent post, you say that no one is responsible for him or herself. Does this mean that no individual is responsible for committing murder? Rather, shouldn't their parents, friends, teachers, local politicians, etc, all be held responsible for their actions? Please reconsider this statement. Our society is built on the premise that rational people are responsible for themselves and should be held accountable for their actions.
That said, children are not to be considered responsible for themselves. Both Hayek and Friedman acknowledge that government should ensure the availability of education to children.
Unfortunately, I don't think you can apply this argument to third-world nations. Rights are contractual, not moral. There are certain things that people cannot do to each other, and there are certain things that the government cannot do to people. Consent is implied in a rights-based system.
A morality-based system, on the other hand, imposes the beliefs and value judgments of some on others. I'm not sure what your goal is besides ending a somewhat arbitrary idea of "exploitation." Foreign governments are responsible for conferring rights upon children, not companies. If you believe in preventing exploitation so strongly, then perhaps you should donate your money or time to an NGO that fights for such issues.
I tend to agree with you that child labor can be reprehensible. Why am I still an adadmant free-trader? Because I believe that it is the best way to raise all these children out of poverty. Is there any evidence that your race to the bottom exists? Why have there been any new factories built in Europe, Canada, the U.S.-all places with high labor standards-in the last twenty years? The answer, of course, is that these workers are more productive. Productivity is increased by education and capital. U.S. companies can provide that capital. Foreign governments can provide education to their citizens, unless they lack the resources. By allowing U.S. companies to invest in a foreign country, their society becomes wealthier. This wealth can allow them to fund education and raise themselves out of poverty. To mandate certain standards on these companies will only deter them from making such an investment. Bottom line: fewer jobs for foreign workers because moralists like yourself felt bad.
Let's extend this to your argument about coercion. You believe that exploiting a "reduced opportunity set" is coercion. You then use a very fallacious "gun pointed at another's head" argument. In the instance of a company, the firm is not exploiting a "reduced opportunity set." The firm is, in fact, providing an additional opportunity to some foreign workers that they may choose to take. Denying them this opportunity through labor standards is much more akin to your "gun pointed at another's head" analogy. You see, in the latter, an individual or group must take deliberate steps to limit the "opportunity set" of another. In the former, an individual or group takes deliberate steps to expand the "opportunity set" of another. Perhaps that person's opportunities were very limited beforehand. This does not change the fact that they are expanding their opportunity set and doing nothing else. The foreign workers still have the choice to take the job. Free trade is free; fair trade and protectionism are coercion.
Posted by: Dan | Nov 6, 2006 1:27:35 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
