Gephart? More dummies in power

[GOT2FISH]

I was watching the news about the capture and they had Gephert on. I must have missed something because somehow the topic got switched to unemployment,he said he was in a county were the unemployment was 14 percent then not 2 minutes later he was talking about asking the world trade org. to impose a world wide minumum wage. So we dont have jobs because we ship them out and then we feel sorry for countries that work for less than we do and we want to raise there standerds to meet ours. Rigggght. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[Silver Hilton]

I doubt Gephardt cares about the foreign workers. They don't vote. He's thinking about job loss here in the US. A world wide minimum wage would reduce the incentive for American companies to ship jobs overseas. This could protect US jobs. It would also increase the income of overseas wage earners, which would increase their ability to buy our exports, which would be good for US business, as well as US workers. Stretching things a bit, one could also note that countries where incomes rise tend to have lower rates of violence and rebellion, which would be better for world peace and our own countrymen's safety.

So, if you remain firm in opposing this idea, you are essentially opposed to jobs for Americans, business for American companies, and safety for Americans.

By the same token, it would be good for American business to get more of our regulations, such as anti-pollution, workman's safety, etc. enacted as world standards, because it would level the playing field for American companies who have to operate under these standards at home. We do all think that helping American companies is a good thing, don't we?

I realize that it's hard for many people to accept, but sometimes an idea can be good for both business and labor. Even if it comes from a Democrat.

[monoman]

What about cost of goods????

If wages go to double or triple the current rate, cost of goods would follow!

Wal-Mart would go broke......fishing rods would start a hundred bucks! So on and so on. World wide inflation, is that a good idea?

[1pump]

Stretching things a bit, one could also note that countries where incomes rise tend to have lower rates of violence and rebellion, which would be better for world peace and our own countrymen's safety.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I don't think that's much of a stretch. When was the last time there was civil unrest in Japan, Singapore or Brazil?
A global minimum wage would be a great idea. Better than double-edged sword of protectionism.
I wish there was some way it could be implemented and enforced.

[Thumper]

It is all just political blather. Who is going to implement and enforce a global minimum wage? Do you really want some wordwide "enforcer" telling sovereign countries (including the U.S.) what corporations must pay their employees? Do you think that U.S. corporations or labor unions would subscribe to such a global policing entity? Crazy, man. Just crazy.

[Silver Hilton]

Thumper, the US companies are already submitting to these standards. That's the point. First world companies (US, European, etc) have always operated at a competitive disadvantage to say, chinese or bangladeshi companies who don't have pollution controls, for a major example. That's a major reason, along with the wage differentials, that so much electronics manufacturing has fled to the far east.

It is probably a stretch to think that a global minimum wage would happen easily, or at all. However, if income levels of workers around the world don't equalize, the inevitable conclusion is that jobs will continue to flee high wage countries to low wage countries.

And it's not just manufacturing. Anyone hear the NPR piece recently on call centers moving to India? The Indian employees go to a specific school to learn American accents. That had one woman who could switch between Chicago and New York on cue.

Tech support jobs, programming jobs, analyst jobs, are all flowing overseas.

I don't know what the answer is, or even if I know the right way to phrase the question, but I think the problem deserves more thought.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:
Anyone hear the NPR piece recently on call centers moving to India?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It is truly a worldwide economy. Consider all the products (and services) that we now buy that are based on the labor of people in other countries. There is no way to turn the clock back.

Americans have to come to terms with the fact that our labor competes everyday in a wordwide economy. And to ask a planetary body of some kind to arbitrate minimum wage standards is just nutso. That kind of thinking just forestalls the day when Americans will be able to compete in the world.

[Silver Hilton]

[quote]Originally posted by Thumper:

to ask a planetary body of some kind to arbitrate minimum wage standards is just nutso. That kind of thinking just forestalls the day when Americans will be able to compete in the world.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">How would managing wage standards be any different than tariff standards, product standards, or anti-dumping restrictions which are in place today? The WTO already exists, and is influential enough to persuade President Bush to remove the steel tariff. So the mechanism to influence foreign countries exists, if we decided that we wanted to use it.

However, you are right in identifying that US companies have some issues in competing in the worldwide marketplace. The wage differentials inhibit US based companies from a competitive standpoint, as do the various environmental controls and safety controls that we legislate onto companies. Both the US and Europe impose huge costs on business through regulation, which undeniably make it harder for them to compete with goods manufactured in the second and third world countries.

So, we have three options:

1) do nothing, and watch US companies suffer and US jobs migrate overseas. Owners of financial capital will not be noticably affected, because capital can be deployed remotely.

2) Relax wage controls and remove other competitive inhibitors such as OSHA, pollution controls on US companies, etc, so the US companies can compete on a fair basis, or

3) Seek to get similar controls placed on foreign companies by their own countries, so that US companies can compete fairly.

We will pick some one or the other of these options. The question is simply whether we will do it consciously.

[ 12-14-2003, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[Albacore Tuna Captain]

This idea of having a world wide minimum wage is probably the sillest thread I've ever seen! How in the world could it ever be suggested to other nations, negotiated, implimented and how could you enforce it in a nation that did not like the idea?? Come on, be real! Until there is a one world controlling body, this idea is as wacky as getting pigs to fly. I'm not surprised it came from a space cadet like Gephart. [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

[Lured In]

I think much of the useful part of this conversation has been posted, but would like to add one more thought.

The US minimum wage has increased from somewhere around $3.25 when I started working to near $7 in some places. One of the issues that any of the states face in upping the minimum wage is the impact on cities/towns with lower overall cost of living. Imposing higher operating costs (wages/salaries) can result in layoffs, when not balance against market opportunity. Untill the market opportunity, outstrips the supply of labor, wages salaries will remain low. By raising minimum wage, you are raising the cost of doing busiess (reducing profitability) and at the same time likely raising prices (cost of living) as businesses will raise prices to keep profits up.

The end result is potentially fewer people working and fewer people buying and the total amount of money exchanging hands stays the same.

This would also hold true for other countries. You cannot artificially excelerate the process of economic development just by raising minimum wage. The reason those countries are getting business right now is because they have offer businesses lower operating costs. If you raise that, the country will loose the business and then instead of having people work for low wage jobs, you have people not working at all.

Time will allow for the economic development of countries. (Just like the US went through). We should be concerned with worker rights and safety in other countries, but more importantly is free enterprise. If they are allowed to continue to develop, free enterprise will create a demand for better employess (higher wages) and a better product.

[DanS]

How in the world could it ever be suggested to other nations, negotiated, implimented and how could you enforce it in a nation that did not like the idea

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">International agreements on trade and tariffs already exist and are "enforced" regardless of the willingness of any country to participate. You don't participate, you aren't considered an accepted trade partner. It simple, really.

If you want to argue against a worldwide minimum wage, at least use an arument that isn't so flimsy.