|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Aug 9, 2007 16:26:44 GMT -6
On today's Lou Dobbs show it was reported that Chinese workers building the Olympic facilities are paid $100/month. Assuming they're only working 40 hours/week (and 160 hours/month), that comes out to $0.625/hour.
Can we "educate" our workers to make up for this wage differential?
Maybe we can educate Americans on how to live on 62 cents per hour.
|
|
|
Post by Grapple on Aug 9, 2007 19:28:06 GMT -6
The same is happening in that other show case of globalism, Dubai where the construction workers who build 7 star hotels get the same wages. It really shows the real face of globalism when you look past the fancy facades and see how it really works in the globalist showcases
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Aug 11, 2007 4:06:11 GMT -6
Globalism is all about rich Corporate interests finding the cheapest source of labor. "New" jobs are not created. They're simply transferred from a high-wage country to a low wage country. In the longer-run, jobs are actually lost globally, because average global labor income declines when higher-wage workers are replaced with lower-wage workers. The result is a decline in labor income, a decline in labor/consumer spending power-- resulting in a decline in consumer spending a demand for goods and services. The only "gainers" from globalization are the super rich and the multi-national Corporations, who increase profit margins from reduced labor costs. They pass on a fraction of the labor cost reductions to consumers, allowing them to falsely espouse the benefits of "lower prices." But the lower prices don't even come close to compensating for the lost aggregate wages of workers. If the cost reduction did fully compensate for aggregate wage loss, there'd be no increase in Corporate profits, and no reason to outsource in the first place. Outsourcing is simply another way of transferring income upward, by increasing Corporate profits at the expense of workers' wages. The Presidential candidates (excluding Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel), propagandize about workers "sharing the benefits of globalization." This is an oxymoron. There is no way to "share the benefits." The only benefits were to reduce labor costs and increase Corporate profits as a result. The only way to "share the benefits" of globalization is to stop it altogether. World trade existed long before globalization was ever conceived of. And world trade would continue if the U.S. completely stopped outsourcing and globalization. What would not continue, however, is the continual increase in the wage-productivity gap nor the continual increase in income inequality. Again, had consumer spending increases been confined to wage increases, the run-away globalization and wage arbitrage would never have reached the level it has reached. Without massive increases in consumer spending, financed by credit and borrowing, consumer spending could never have been sustained at a level high enough to allow this much globalization. The lack of wage-financed spending increases would have greatly limited this run-away globalization. Consumers would not have been able to purchase the production necessary to allow for exorbitant Corporate profits, which have helped fund the outsourcing of American jobs, as well as "funding" legislators willing to pass legislation to facilitate globalization and the outsourcing of American jobs.
|
|