Can someone please explain why it is that approx. 70 to 80% (I think
I am being a little too conservative with these percentages) of the
"items" for sale, at any given department store in America today,
are made in China? This question has bothered me for years.
Is this simply a matter of lower labor cost in regards to
manufacturing? Are the majority of these products designed in the
states and then produced overseas?
There's been quite a lot about this, the "race to the bottom" etc.
See below, for a recent article.
I realize this is off-topic, and I do try to keep my off-topic posts
to an absolute minimum, but I could sure use some enlightenment on
this one.
What's on- or off-topic is matter of widely varying opinion and
circumstance. Topics are therefore not restricted, especially as
there doesn't seem to be any rational way of doing that. It's
presumed (with some justification) that members will be judicious in
what they post and won't stray too far. Please see the List rules on
"Rights and obligations" and "Open discussion":
http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/Week-of-Mon-20040906/000005.html
Anyway, feel free!
Best wishes
Keith Addison
List owner
AntiFossil
Minnesota USA
*********************************************************
"If you think you are too small to make a
difference try sleeping with a mosquito."
Dalai Lama
*********************************************************
"The difference between truth and fiction
is that fiction must make sense or nobody
will believe it." Mark Twain
*********************************************************
_______________________________________________
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/of_trade_quotas_and_fairness.php
Of Trade, Quotas And Fairness
Jonathan Tasini
December 22, 2004
Tasini argues that international trade can only be fair when
regulations ensure an equal distribution across the globe of trade's
economic benefits. Case in point: the quotas on apparel that have
been in place for the past 40 years. They have helped developing
countries achieve some measure of economic sustainability. Now that's
about to end. And that's no good for anyone. Except China.
Jonathan Tasini is president of the Economic Future Group and writes
his "Working In America" columns for TomPaine.com on an occasional
basis.
While millions of amateurs will wake up in the New Year with a
splitting headache-the real hangover of consequence will be felt by
millions of poor people around the world thanks to blind, mindless
ideology. On January1, almost without notice, the biggest shift in
jobs in the shortest amount of time in history will begin: 30 million
jobs. And you can thank so-called "free trade."
After 40 years, the New Year will mark the end of worldwide quotas on
apparel, courtesy of the World Trade Organization. Quotas-far from
being a bad thing-are a way to manage some fairness or equilibrium in
trade relations. In contrast to the Wild West, cutthroat-system of
so-called "free-trade," for which the WTO acts as ideological
enforcer. Within 500 days, 70 percent of the industry will move to
China -a $220 billion shift; $42 billion of that shift will happen
just in the business other countries had with the U.S. Now,
certainly, U.S. apparel workers are going to feel a terrible hit. The
remaining U.S. industry will almost be wiped out: of the roughly
690,000 jobs left in apparel in this country, probably 400,000 will
vanish in three years. These are often jobs in rural, poorer
communities where there are not a lot of options.
A Blow To Developing Countries
But, I want to spend this column on the devastation that will be
faced by other countries where the blow to economic sustainability
should be of concern to progressives everywhere. Mexico, Turkey,
African countries and Caribbean countries will be deeply shaken
economically-losing millions of jobs and billions of dollars in
badly-needed cash. The shift will happen so quickly-in economic cycle
terms-that these countries will have no chance to replace even a
fraction of the lost apparel jobs. In a short time, millions of
people will be on the move, turned into nomads clawing for
subsistence-level survival. It will make the displacement of the
Okies of the Dust Bowl look like a short picnic outing.
Take Bangladesh. Apparel accounts for 78 percent of total exports and
1.6 million jobs. It has an unemployment rate of 40 percent and a per
capita income of $1,900 a year. When the quotas expire, this poor,
struggling country will lose 1 million apparel jobs, 62 percent of
its industry.
How do we know this will happen? Look at the track record. Some
segments of the apparel industry (like dressing gowns) were already
removed from the quota system in 2002. What happened? China's share
of those segments skyrocketed from just 9 percent in 2001 to 72
percent in 2004-an extremely short time in which to globally dominate
an industry. While China was gobbling up the business, Mexico,
Thailand, India, the Philippines, Taiwan, Bangladesh and Caribbean
countries all lost at least half of their industry.
Now, I'm a little uneasy about the China-bashing that is all the rage
today. Not because China has an authoritarian government that
prohibits basic labor and human rights, undervalues its currency by
40 percent to give it a huge cost advantage and has a regime that
might as well stow the red flag in the closet because it enables the
wrecking machine called global capitalism. Rather, we have to
remember that there is vast unemployment in rural parts of China.
Fifteen million new Chinese workers a year need jobs, and tens of
millions of Chinese people are being forced to work for 70 cents a
day-none of whom have the right to form independent unions.
Addicted To Exports
Here's the supreme irony to this approaching human catastrophe. Over
the past decade or so, politicians and economists who were going
bonkers over U.S. aid to poor countries and trying to end it came up
with the ingenious idea of addicting poor countries to export-related
jobs. This was the foreign policy version of welfare reform-why
should good 'ole American dollars be used to help poor people? At the
time, pre-love affair with China, corporations salivated over the
vast ranks of cheap labor in places like Bangladesh. So, desperate
for some way to lift their people out of poverty, the poorest
countries welcomed the manufacturing production.
In their limited way, the quota system was a good example of global
economic engineering that made a positive difference for many
desperately poor people. While quotas have been attacked as
"protectionism," these quotas provided poor countries the ability to
develop some manufacturing capacity. Quotas are a sane way to manage
trade so the economic benefits can be more evenly spread out.
And that's what we need to understand about so-called "free trade."
It's a way of managing trade, too. Except so-called "free trade"
manipulates trade without any regard to whether the end result means
sustainable economies for poor countries. Thank you very much,
Bangladesh, Mexico, Turkey and the rest of the countries
that sacrificed their citizens' bodies and limbs for profits-you're
not cheap enough anymore. To hell with your people-we, global
corporations, can get a better deal in China.
If the end of the global apparel quota system tells us anything it's
that so-called "free trade" is not about finding the smartest
workers. Forget the nonsense we've been taught by conservatives and
liberal Democrats that workers are just too dumb and need to be
retrained. So-called "free trade" means only one thing: the global
rules of the economy will be set by how far the cost of a human
being's labor can be driven down.
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
