Marnie, Firstly, I didn't mean to come across as aggressive though I might have.
Secondly, there's a lot more to prices and wages than safety laws. As an example, computer programming is a safe occupation. Having worked in this profession in multiple countries I do not find a difference in worker safety. Yet these jobs are being distributed around the world. The important factor here is not safety but availability of workers and the wages those workers have to be paid. Similar factors for other industries are raw materials, transportation costs etc. Safety has a relative aspect too. One needs to ask the question, safe in comparison to what? For most workers in the third world, safety lies in what you might consider unsafe but for them the alternative (starvation) is worse. Life is unarguably safer than death. After all, the whole point of safety is for life. I would also like to point out that without globalization this list would not exist. Pentax is a Japanese company, after all. So not everything to do with globalization is bad. There are some benefits too. >"capital loses its national identity..." [David Korten] Capital lost it's national identity thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of years ago when tribes of men started dealing with each other. Further, it has not had a national identity for all of historic times. It's simply too late to bemoan the fact. > "localities no longer share control over trade and capital with the firm." [David Korten] Localities never had any right to share control over trade and capital with firms. All resources of firms belong to their owners and nobody else. However, if one argues that they do then it can also be claimed that the sharing is still being done but with other localities that insist a little less on the "right to share." > It can't last forever, of course, because eventually workers in all countries > will demand more rights, but it can last a long, long, long, long, long time. > There are still a lot of poor countries for companies to continue to migrate > to once one country has wised up. Ah! But it can. As you say, US workers are getting poorer. So by the time workers in the now poor countries get rich and wise up, US workers will be poor. Then all the services jobs will be in India, China (maybe even Tanzania) etc. and low paid manufacturing jobs will be in the US. :) This is just to point out the contradiction. I'm not saying this is going to happen. > I need to show a PESO soon, and get back to photography, but you asked. Thanks for taking the time. Look forward to the PESO. Cheers, Gautam On 2/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a message dated 2/12/2006 11:17:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On 2/12/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip The path of globalization tends to lead downward to the lowest > > common denominator. [snip] > > How so? > > Cheers, > Gautam > ======== > US (and probably European and Japanese too) Companies move to countries where > they can pay their workers the least amount. And where there are no worker > protection laws say regarding toxic substances and safety on the job. > > Which make products in countries where there are protections for workers more > expensive by comparison. Which tends to bring down the job market in those > countries that do protect workers. For instance, the USA used to be a major > manufacturing center. Now most manufacturing of US company products is done > overseas where they can pay workers less -- a lot, lot, lot, less -- and not > have to > worry about niggling safety laws. > > So the US has turned into a service economy, where service jobs are the > largest growing segment of the economy. Service jobs have replaced > manufacturing > jobs. Except service related jobs (say hotel workers) pay about 1/3-1/4 of > what > manufacturing jobs once did. So the average worker in the USA is actually > getting poorer. As evidenced by one of our biggest employers now, WalMart, > that > doesn't provide health care for its workers, and doesn't pay them enough to > let > them even approach a decent standard of living. > > Downward spiral. All around. For everyone. Spiraling down to the least common > denominator. > > It can't last forever, of course, because eventually workers in all countries > will demand more rights, but it can last a long, long, long, long, long time. > There are still a lot of poor countries for companies to continue to migrate > to once one country has wised up. > > That's about as well as I can sum it up. > ======== > > "Under the conditions of an integrated world economy... in which capital > flows freely across national borders to the locality offering the highest, > quickest profits, capital transnationalizes; capital loses its national > identity... > localities no longer share control over trade and capital with the firm. > Instead, control rests almost exclusively with firms that have limited local > attachment... Today the most intense competition in the globally integrated > market > is... between governments that find themselves competing with one another for > investors by offering the cheapest and most compliant labor; the weakest > environmental, health, and safety standards; and the lowest taxes; and the > most fully > developed infrastructure. > > David Korten > Getting to the 21st Century > and Globalizing Civil Society > ======== > > I think he said something also like, global capital has no conscience. But I > cannot find the exact quote. > > I need to show a PESO soon, and get back to photography, but you asked. > > Marnie aka Doe > >
