[PEN-L:3598] scoring expenditures dynamically
Given all the recent talk of the need to use "dynamic" scoring when considering tax cuts, I'm curious whether anyone has written or seen an essay countering with a discussion of scoring expenditures in a similar manner. I did see this mentioned as a possibility, in passing and disparagingly, in a newspaper story focused on tax cutting; but what I'd be interested in is an entire essay on the subject of spending -- one that draws on the evidence and literature of public investment, crowding in, and related matters.
[PEN-L:3599] Re: Real Change for a Change?
c Regionalism and "new-federalism" is an idea that Rex Tugwell developed for decentralization and regional aggrements. The rule should be to do everything at the lowist possible level. The idea of the U.S. Constitution was to have independent states. In my fater's day "the government" was the state - not washington - which didn't do much until the new deal and the war economy. "Peter E. Pflaum, Ph.D. Institute for Human Resources (904) 428-9609 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO: Andrew U. Hassman RE: Regional Reforms From: Institute for Human Resource 225 Robinson Road New Smyrna Beach (P.O. Box 2176) FL 32069 (904) 428-9609Dr. Peter E. Pflaum July 16, 1994 (Revised December 18, 1994) [EMAIL PROTECTED] President William Clinton Vice-President Albert Gore The White House 1700 Pennsylvania Ave Washington, D.C. 20001 The ideas about the organization of the national government as old as the Federalist Papers (Hamilton and Madison) and as new as November's election with the theories of Newt Gingrich. Three basic fields come together in a coherent idea of the learning organization - intelligent government. Psychological ideas of motivation and intelligence (Maslow, Gardner, H. Frames of Mind); Learning Theory from John Dewey and R.W. Revans (Origins and Growth of Action Learning); Group Dynamics from Benis, Argyris, Peters, (Theory of Leadership); come together in the concept of the small, flexible, quick, decentralized, informational rich systems of Deming and Charles Handy, The Age of Unreason). Mancar Olson Rise Decline of Nations reminds us of the typical paradigm of each historic period - the Agricultural estate, mass production, to Toffler's Third Wave. It is interesting to recall that for Aristotle the Family was the model for the state. The order of the household is the building block of communities. Wilson's social-biology suggests that the troop and family behavior is hard wired (like language) and there are deep groves of natural human behavior. Reform must conform to the character of man and society. Regionalism as used in this paper is not primarily interstate compacts but simply the administration of federal programs. The power to sign off on wavers, grants, federal transfers from the Reserve Banks to the States; can be in Washington or in the Federal regional councils. By administrative action the Regional Directors could have real authority. The effects of this decentralization are monumental because of the political culture. Governors working with regional directors would be a very different power base than a Department Secretary working with committee chairmen in Washington. Reforming government (and our central ideas of organizations of all kinds - business, schools, churches, households) requires more than minor changes but a radical rethinking of our governmental arrangements. G.M. took more than a decade to realize that it had to actually decentralize. Only by really distributing power to smaller units can any big organization become quicker and sufficiently responsive to rapidly changing demands. Private business go out of business, fail, go bankrupt when they can no longer meet the demands of the market. Government cannot go out of business. Governments either reform or have one form or another of violent revolutions. Ask Tom Paine. The history of reform is partly driven by the desire to avoid revolutionary change. There is also an inherent desire for good government. Good government promotes civic virtues. Belief in "the System" fosters higher quality citizens and citizenship. The polis of Athens and the U.S. Constitution tried to nourish merit for its own sake. The function of government is the authoritative allocation of value. The legitimacy of government, as a personal reputation is lightly lost and hard to gain. Management reforms in business spills over into public administration. From the belief in scientific management to Z theory we are believers in one practice or another. The people of this country want the country to work for them. The Perot supporters know the system is not working for them and the future of their children. It would be better to deal with the problem than wait until it boils over. When a people have experienced a long period of growth and increasing prosperity, they come to expect continuous progress. FDR gave the people hope. Perhaps he saved capitalism from the capitalist. When times become hard, many blame the "system." Revolutions have historically arisen from disappointment with economic growth in societies that have known long periods of economic growth and social progress. (Colonial America, France, Latin America, Russia, Cuba, China) We must reform the system to save it. Two generations before FDR's New Deal, Otto Von Bismarck created a basic
[PEN-L:3601] Re: Arguments: labor exploitation and boycotts
One problem I have with boycotts arose when I purchased a copy of the National Boycott Newsletter (if that is its correct name). It turns out that there are _so many_ different products that should be boycotted on simple moral grounds that it seems that it would be easier to list the products that _shouldn't_ be boycotted. The newsletter made no effort to decide which were reasonable boycotts and which not. And most of them seemed reasonable. So it seems to me that the boycotting tactic should be used sparingly. It makes most sense if it is used by an existing movement or organization -- which contacts those workers affected by the boycott to see if they think it's a good idea (as with the boycott of S. Africa, which was endorsed by Tutu, Mandela, and many others in that country). It also makes most if it's applied in conjunction with a public education campaign. In general, it makes most sense as one tactic that fits as part of a general long-term *strategy* which itself is aimed at attaining some clear goals. An attitude of "I don't like it so I'll boycott it" won't do much besides make one feel good about being morally superior. Beyond that, I generally agree with Tavis's comments (in the second version). As for bill mitchell's recommendation that we avoid commodified toys altogether: it's absolutely true that non-commodified toys are great. On Monday I bought some new shoes. My son Guthrie (4 1/2) seemed just as excited by the shoebox as by any of the individual toys that flooded our house during the Chanukah/Saturnalia/Christmas season. He immediately colored it and and punched holes in it and turned it into a toy. But commodified toys ain't all bad. Are we to make our own crayons and the like? Besides, boycotting toys in general doesn't deal with the fact of the gifts we receive and the crass commercial fact that my father-in-law is in the toy industry (he invented the famous yakkety-yak teeth) and wants to give his grandson the newest and coolest toys every time he can. (it would also undermine his income, but that's another issue.) Actually, the best reason to avoid commercial toys is that they clutter up an already insufferably cluttered house. But then again so does the shoebox. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante.
[PEN-L:3602] Fundamental reform
[EMAIL PROTECTED] RE: Fundamental Changes? If you keep doing what you do - you keep getting what you have got, (gotten)! The system is broke and there will be no fundamental change because of the events of this week, January 3, 1995. We must change the system. Fix the system not the blame - new regional governments, true decentralization. Restructuring is rarely all fun. What do they call it in Eastern Europe - shock treatments - The "new right" is already unhappy with the Contract with America. The voters will be unhappy with the results. Why a third party with a small program - new federalism, fiscal responsibility, and leave the rest to local actors - maybe, maybe - non-directive - no more what we are going to do for you - but get the power to the people - and let them do what they will in smaller more limited governments. The current level of federal activity is 22.3% of GDP (1400 B of 6 Trillion) with income of about 18.8% (1,200 Billion)- deficit of 3.5% or 200 billion. A real change would be to reduce government activities by 10%; this would cut outlays 120 billion, non- social security, activity would have to take the cut of 15%, very hard but not impossible. A one trillion program budget plus 250 b in debt service would still be 21% of GDP well above the historic norm since the 1960's. (17% to 19%) To reduce federal program outlays (excluding debt service) below 1 trillion would be a major task. To do so with a tax cut is impossible. Real cuts - not over baseline cuts - will make millions of people really angry - farm supports, veterans benefits (The VA hospitals could be sold off and vets given a Gold med- care card - and save 12 billion), controls on double and triple dipping by federal and military retirees, the small business administration, OMB and the Budget committee has had a hit list for a decade - do they have the guts - I doubt it? Not to mention defense - bring the troops hope from Europe (most of them), close bases, postpone weapons systems, cut to a 1 million man total force, no way? Every ox has a protector - 80,000 lobbyist, Pacs, lawyers, organized "grass-roots" supporters - NO way. Why were (are) the democrats so shy about the less government ticket, the new federalism program ? - They hid from the reduce the debt issue until Parot shoved it in their face? Because the real power in the democratic party was (is) committee chairmen who had worked real hard to get these goodies in place - and were well paid to protect and enlarge them - not cut them. Now they are out of work and Republican are at the table - do they want to get REELECTED - does the Pope Fly? Who will pay them to cut - cut - cut ? 1994 estimate GDP 6,641.2 [Reciepts 18.8% outlays 22.3 deficiet 3.5 to 3.7 1995 estimate7,022 reciepts 19.3 % 1996 estimate7,418.9 19 % 1999 estimate8,750.3 19.1 outlays 21.2 deficies -3.2 Fiscal Year ReceiptsOutlays Surplus or ReceiptsOutlays Surplus or Composite ReceiptsOutlays Surplus Deficit(-) Deflator Deficit(-) 1994 estimate1,249.11,483.8 -234.8 -181.8 1.2914 18.8 22.3 1995 estimate1,353.81,518.9 1996 estimate1,427.3 1997 estimate1,505.1 1998 estimate1,586.9 1999 estimate1,672.91,854.0 -181.11,110.21,230.4 -120.2 1.5069 19.1 21.2 7. SUMMARY TABLES Table 7-1. BUDGET OUTLAYS BY CATEGORY (In billions of dollars) --- Estimate 1993 Actual 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 --- Discretionary: Defense discretionary.292.4280.6271.1261.6257.0257.1 258.1 Nondefense discretionary.250.0269.5271.3282.3287.3291.0 296.3 Discretionary health care reform ... ... ... 2.2 3.4 -3.7 -6.1 - Subtotal, discretionary542.5550.1542.4546.1547.8544.4 548.3 Mandatory: Social Security benefits..302.0317.7334.5353.7369.5389.6 410.8 Federal retirement benefits\1\... 59.8 63.0 65.2 67.9 71.3 74.6 78.9
[PEN-L:3603] Re: Arguments: labor exploitation and boycotts
Yo Bill! I think ya really got something here. By the way, what toys do you play with? Regards J. Case PS How bout australian baseball bats? There could be a business opportunity here?!
[PEN-L:3605] Upcoming lunion conference on I-Highway
From Solinet: == lounge95/jan #10, giacobboe, 944 chars, 4-JAN-95 18:13 -- TITLE: Information Superhighway Conference The Ontario Federation of Labour will hold a one-day conference on Thursday, March 2, 1995, on Unions and the Information Superhighway. The purpose of this conference is to tackle some tough questions on how new information technologies will impact on workers and unions. Will this technology accelerate the growth of homework and telework? How will skill requirements change? Will the information superhighway trigger job losses in sectors ranging from printing to clerical services to retail? Will it open up possibilities for tapping into entirely new fields of information to support organizing and bargaining? The conference is open to all members of OFL affiliates. If you would like more information, please contact the OFL Technology Adjustment Research Programme (TARP) Co-ordinator, John Anderson. He can be reached on Solinet at ofltarp or at 416-441- 2731. Sid Shniad
[PEN-L:3606] Re: Arguments: labor exploitation and boycotts
Yo Bill! I think ya really got something here. By the way, what toys do you play with? Regards J. Case PS How bout australian baseball bats? There could be a business opportunity here?! While baseball is creeping into our sports agenda, like macdonalds and other american things, cricket still remains the passion - 5 days of play for 6 hours a day, sometimes nothing seems to be happening, sometimes there is not even a result, but we love it. I want to say a few things about Tavis's input which i have some ambivalence with - i agree on one level, but very much disagree on another. Yes, we have an overriding responsibility to humanity no matter where they live or what they look like. Yes, it is easy to sit in an advanced economy, earn a living, have a house, and ponder the higher level matters which obviously impinge on the welfare of others. But that is the rub. (a small matter which was not included in Tavis's email was that many of the products which come out of China now, are not made in factories like ours but are really made in forced labour camps. There is a lot of evidence which came out in Australia last year about this. Many product lines were mentioned and the brand names noted.) Back to the rub. The world, that is the sum of the countries, cannot afford to go on consuming at the rate it currently is. It cannot also not afford to go on breeding at the rate it currently is. I would advocate not only boycotting products from uncouth regimes around the world, but also we should everyday try to minimise the products we buy from the capitalist system. my own child hardly had a "commodified" toy, relying on things like sticks and shells (to coin a genre rather than anything literal). She is now doing her phd is very creative and innovative and doesn't signal childhood deprivation. but the only way the capitalist process is going to come to a crunch is if we drive it to crises. so i am not saying let the rest of them suffer while we consume away. all of us have a responsibility to nature to withdraw from consumption. we spend most of our income on what might be called green things. we are replanting acres of land with native trees and it costs a high proportion of our own income. the amount the capitalists get from us is minimised. we reject most products which are packaged. we rip the packaging up in the supermarket and leave it behind. it sends signals. we grow as much of our own food as we can. so if we follow Tavis's idea and allow the rest of the world to become advanced capitalist nations that is hardly progress. for a start they are likely to have more polluting methods than we have (less democratic resistance), and they do have appalling working conditions. to enslave them in capitalism is hardly progress. Look at the soviet union now, people on the street dying in the cold b/c they cannot afford housing. and it is simply not feasible to encourage markets with the attendant need for mass consumption in the world at large. the natural system will die sooner rather than later. fundamental change is required in our economies, rather than replicating our destruction across the globe. So i guess i believe if things get really bad the citizens will revolt and take over the production processes and gear them to sustainable and green production with an emphasis on individual freedom. capitalism does not equate to individual freedom. And while Jim is a mate of mine, I would prefer his father-in-law to go broke along with all the rest of them. kind regards bill ** William F. MitchellTelephone: +61-49-215027 .-_|\ Department of Economics +61-49-705133 / \ The University of NewcastleFax: +61-49-216919 \.--._/*-- Callaghan NSW 2308v Australia Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html **
[PEN-L:3608] Re: Arguments: labor exploitation and boycotts (fwd)
On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Dan Epstein wrote: First, I am no "progressive nationalist" so get off your huffy high horse. Don't worry, hon, the remark wasn't intended for you. It was a gratuituous and unsolicited bait to Jim Devine and Bill Mitchell and Paul Phillips. Jim and Paul have decided not to waste their time with it, I think sensibly since they'll get plenty of chances to bait me back when someone supports NAFTA for "progressive" reasons or something. Bill for whatever selfless reason has responded with some interesting and thoughtful comments and I hope I'll be able to reply to him in kind. ... workers who do decide to migrate can only benefit from the option of employment in the factories that produce these toys -- after all, no one is forcing them to work there. Really? How much choice do they really have? This attitude smacks of first world arrogance to me. They have relatively little choice. That's part of my point. Take away their ability to work in export firms and they will have even fewer choices. If you want to stand proudly behind a drive to push displaced Chinese peasants into the informal sector, be my guest. Let's say the same argument can be made for slavery a few centuries ago. Were any authoritative organizations of African American slaves calling for a boycott? I doubt it. They were forbidden by law (as is the right to organize in some countries). Of course there were -- escaped slaves. Fine, I'll rephrase the question: Are there any organizations of Chinese workers in exile asking for a total boycott of Chinese products (aside from perhaps a few anti-Communist circles)? What's your point? Let me ask Tavis a question. If slavery were in effect in the US, would he support the purchase of slave labor, either directly or indirectly? Would he support purchasing, products rolling out of, say, German concentration camps? Why (not)? Perhaps the answers will clarify the issue since as an "internationalist" I think the question I'm dealing with are not so different. Okay, pen-l prize giveaway: whose law of large number is it that as the number of posts goes to infinity, the probability of somebody on one side likening their oponents to Nazi apologists approaches one? And is it a strong law or a weak law? The winner gets a sub to the new Solidarity magazine that we're starting up (no name yet). But, of course, you'll have to remember before I get back home to NY and look it up in the issue of _Wired_ from some time this fall that I first saw it in :) To clarify a point, I would be highly supportive of directing my purchases towards helping labor in the third world. Given that the only real say I have in the political economic system is where and how to spend my money, I find it troublesome to indirectly have children toiling under often hazardous working conditions working under virtual slavery producing cheap products for my consumption (and enriching the industrialists). Perhaps I am wrong in the tactics I utilize... Damn, I was going to insist that you really _wanted_ to see third-world workers barefoot and starving. :) In all seriousness, I know that there are people on Pen-L involved in such organizations -- maybe the North/South Network, certainly there are support groups for Latin American unions whose posts crop up on here. I don't know of anything dealing with CHinese or Thai workers but maybe Kai Mander does. They need all of our help. I think you'd get further than you would with a blanket boycott. Yours for the squabble after the revolution, Tavis
[PEN-L:3609] Re: Arguments: labor exploitation and boycotts
On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, bill mitchell wrote: (a small matter which was not included in Tavis's email was that many of the products which come out of China now, are not made in factories like ours but are really made in forced labour camps. There is a lot of evidence which came out in Australia last year about this. Many product lines were mentioned and the brand names noted.) I'd support a boycott like this, since it seems targeted and clear in its goals. I remember the same reports coming out in the US too. Unfortunately we have a similar problem in the land of the free and the home of the brave: Prison labor is used to displace union labor on highway projects. So I'm afraid it's not unique to LDCs. I'd say the same about boycotting firms that use child labor. Of course we're getting ourselves into a stickier situation since people enter the labor force younger in LDCs and it stops becoming clear who's an adult. All the same, it gets into the old touchy area of Western conceptions of human rights. Indulge me in the Fellini-esque notion that the Chinese used their proceeds from prison labor to support a national health care system. Perhaps there's the more serious notion in the case of child labor that we're preventing children who wouldn't go to school anyway from supporting their families. I in the US regard the right not to be exploited by one's family as fundamental, but clearly many cultures to not. It's a sticky swamp. Back to the rub. The world, that is the sum of the countries, cannot afford to go on consuming at the rate it currently is. It cannot also not afford to go on breeding at the rate it currently is. I would advocate not only boycotting products from uncouth regimes around the world, but also we should everyday try to minimise the products we buy from the capitalist system. my own child hardly had a "commodified" toy, relying on things like sticks and shells (to coin a genre rather than anything literal). She is now doing her phd is very creative and innovative and doesn't signal childhood deprivation. I was deprived of TV (especially Saturday Morning cartoons, when my parents made me go to German school) and candy and my symptoms are that I now have difficulty abstaining from large quantities of ice cream and The Simpsons. So it doesn't always work. But seriously, I'd be hesitant to make your above statements so unambiguously: Who knows how long the world can go on breeding and consuming at the rate it does? I agree with your overall point that jump-starting the whole world into advanced capitalism is not environmentally feasible, but I also have few doubts in the ability of capitalism to reform itself (e.g., clean cars and slit plowing) when faced with extinction -- for better or for worse. I dream of being able to have a big garden where I grow mostly my own vegetables. Maybe some day I will. But it's not feasible for most urban Americans, and it strikes me as an intellectual pursuit with little mass appeal. I'm just not sure how far anyone will get advocating large-scale abstention from consumer society. But you may be able to persuade me on this point. so if we follow Tavis's idea and allow the rest of the world to become advanced capitalist nations that is hardly progress. for a start they are likely to have more polluting methods than we have (less democratic resistance), and they do have appalling working conditions. to enslave them in capitalism is hardly progress. Look at the soviet union now, people on the street dying in the cold b/c they cannot afford housing. and it is simply not feasible to encourage markets with the attendant need for mass consumption in the world at large. the natural system will die sooner rather than later. fundamental change is required in our economies, rather than replicating our destruction across the globe. So i guess i believe if things get really bad the citizens will revolt and take over the production processes and gear them to sustainable and green production with an emphasis on individual freedom. capitalism does not equate to individual freedom. And yet I suspect that you too would rather be a worker in Korea than a worker in Bangladesh. And I don't think it's just your western tastes and prejudices. For all of the destruction that it may cause, do we have the right to tell Bangladeshis that they don't deserve to have the wages and living conditions that even Koreans have? Capitalism may not create any mroe Koreas, but it is still in the process of making countries like Malaysia and Thailand a lot more like Korea than they once were. And the revolution still isn't around the corner. Does that make it all bad? Aye, there's the rub. Cheers, Tavis
[PEN-L:3610] toys et al.
Oh Tavis, you bring out the worst in me. I should point out that we boycott US toys for Christmas presents for our grandchildren -- in particular the products from Disney which we consider the worst of all producers. In relative terms, we consider these products the bottom of the line -- below those produced in China ( because at least the Americans should know better). But, hey Bill, we make as many of our gifts as we can for the ]kids, sew cloths, build toys, etc. It not only keeps us in touch with our granchildren (in an artisanal way), it gives us great pride in our craftsmanship while using up left-over materials and wood. And to all, best wishes for peace and tranquility in the new year! Paul Phillips
[PEN-L:3611] Re: Arguments: labor exploitation and boycotts (fwd)
What's your point? Let me ask Tavis a question. If slavery were in effect in the US, would he support the purchase of slave labor, either directly or indirectly? Would he support purchasing, products rolling out of, say, German concentration camps? Why (not)? Perhaps the answers will clarify the issue since as an "internationalist" I think the question I'm dealing with are not so different. Okay, pen-l prize giveaway: whose law of large number is it that as the number of posts goes to infinity, the probability of somebody on one side likening their oponents to Nazi apologists approaches one? And is it a strong law or a weak law? The winner gets a sub to the new Solidarity magazine that we're starting up (no name yet). But, of course, you'll have to remember before I get back home to NY and look it up in the issue of _Wired_ from some time this fall that I first saw it in :) Incredible! Is this guy for real? Does anyone else think that I am accusing Tavis of Nazi apologia? Does Tavis really think so? Geez. (am I also accusing you of slavery apologia, rendering further discussion useless?). How about answering the question, cutting out the polemics and giving "your opponent" the benefit of the doubt, Tavis. Dan --- Begin of Replyed Message In message Pine.3.89.9501042206.A15418-010@csa, You wrote the following: On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Dan Epstein wrote: First, I am no "progressive nationalist" so get off your huffy high horse. Don't worry, hon, the remark wasn't intended for you. It was a gratuituous and unsolicited bait to Jim Devine and Bill Mitchell and Paul Phillips. Jim and Paul have decided not to waste their time with it, I think sensibly since they'll get plenty of chances to bait me back when someone supports NAFTA for "progressive" reasons or something. Bill for whatever selfless reason has responded with some interesting and thoughtful comments and I hope I'll be able to reply to him in kind. ... workers who do decide to migrate can only benefit from the option of employment in the factories t hat produce these toys -- after all, no one is forcing them to work there. Really? How much choice do they really have? This attitude smacks of first world arrogance to me. They have relatively little choice. That's part of my point. Take away their ability to work in export firms and they will have even fewer choices. If you want to stand proudly behind a drive to push displaced Chinese peasants into the informal sector, be my guest. Let's say the same argument can be made for slavery a few centuries ago. Were any authoritative organizations of African American slaves calling for a boycott? I doubt it. They were forbidden by law (as is the right to organize in some countries). Of course there were -- escaped slaves. Fine, I'll rephrase the question: Are there any organizations of Chinese workers in exile asking for a total boycott of Chinese products (aside from perhaps a few anti-Communist circles)? What's your point? Let me ask Tavis a question. If slavery were in effect in the US, would he support the purchase of slave labor, either directly or indirectly? Would he support purchasing, products rolling out of, say, German concentration camps? Why (not)? Perhaps the answers will clarify the issue since as an "internationalist" I think the question I'm dealing with are not so different. Okay, pen-l prize giveaway: whose law of large number is it that as the number of posts goes to infinity, the probability of somebody on one side likening their oponents to Nazi apologists approaches one? And is it a strong law or a weak law? The winner gets a sub to the new Solidarity magazine that we're starting up (no name yet). But, of course, you'll have to remember before I get back home to NY and look it up in the issue of _Wired_ from some time this fall that I first saw it in :) To clarify a point, I would be highly supportive of directing my purchases towards helping labor in the third world. Given that the only real say I have in the political economic system is where and how to spend my money, I find it troublesome to indirectly have children toiling under often hazardous working conditions working under virtual slavery producing cheap products for my consumption (and enriching the industrialists). Perhaps I am wrong in the tactics I utilize... Damn, I was going to insist that you really _wanted_ to see third-world workers barefoot and starving. :) In all seriousness, I know that there are people on Pen-L involved in such organizations -- maybe the North/South Network, certainly there are support groups for Latin American unions whose posts crop up on here. I don't know of anything dealing with CHinese or Thai workers but maybe Kai
