Community-based economies the answer?

[merithyn]

Yeah, but those people aren't slaves.  They actually want those jobs.  There is a great talk about the evils of sweat shops and the like, but it turns out, most of those people actually want those jobs.  There are exceptions and where people are forced into unfree labor, but generally speaking, they want those jobs.  It's a hell of lot easier and safer then farming and you get much more cash.  An excellent example is The Kathie Lee Gifford sweatshop scandal in the 1990's.  When it was revealed her line of clothing was being made in Central American sweatshops.  She tearfully apologized and they closed down the factories.  You know who was really pissed?  The average workers, who while making pitiful wages by American standards, were making several times the national average.

Absolutely true. Just as Americans wanted the sweat-shop jobs of the late Victorian era. But after a while they realized that there were other options - better pay, safer work environments, etc. - and they organized and demaned more. That will happen here, too. Historically speaking, it always does.

So they move somewhere else and get their cheap labor there for a while, until it happens there, too. What happens when we run out of places willing to work under those conditions? Long-term, this model just doesn't work.

[Habbaku]

It doesn't. That's the problem that I have with this model. It's very insular. It will help the local economy, while hurting the global economy. That's why I'm asking if there's a way to marry both into a feasible model that will benefit the majority of people and will be sustainable over the long-haul.

I'm not so certain that it would help the local economy in anything but the short-term.  It will certainly help specific groups in the local economy, but if people lack the means to purchase some items because they're spending more to buy some goods locally...

[Razgovory]

Does that make their working conditions acceptable on a human level?

Yes!  Certainly.

[Ideologue]

I don't know enough to consume environmentally, if I could I would.

I find it pretty easy.  I don't eat meat, try not to drive much, live in a mild climate and attempt to suffer bad weather without using the heat, and I use as little plastic as is convenient.  I'd suspect my carbon footprint is 50-75% lower than the average American's.

But I'm rich in self-righteousness.

[merithyn]

that isnt the correct question.  Their living standards have improved and continue to improve.  Valmy hit the nail on the head when he said eventually we will run out of surplus low cost labour - eg China will eventually rich our stardard of living.  It is patronizing and paternalistic to say to China - sorry, we dont like watching you industrialize.

I never said we should. I only said that it's not sustainable.

Further, your author fails to recognize the fundamental fact that international trade raises the standard of living for everyone.  He is worse then a protectionist.  He is more like a nihilist.

You've read his book to know this? I certainly didn't get that from his interview. You may be reading more into his opinion than is there. He's not saying stop international trade; he's saying consider growing a more local economy.

[Habbaku]

So they move somewhere else and get their cheap labor there for a while, until it happens there, too. What happens when we run out of places willing to work under those conditions? Long-term, this model just doesn't work.

Then, as a lot of companies are doing now, they move the factories and positions to places that are more efficient--such as the USA.  This is already happening on a large scale in the automotive industry--view the Toyoto, Kia, etc. factories opening up in the South.  Berkut posted an excellent graph in another thread showing the growth of manufacturing output-per-worker in the USA.  Once the labor stops being cheap enough, the production will simply shift again, at least until labor becomes cheaper elsewhere, ad infinitum.

[Zanza]

Absolutely true. Just as Americans wanted the sweat-shop jobs of the late Victorian era. But after a while they realized that there were other options - better pay, safer work environments, etc. - and they organized and demaned more. That will happen here, too. Historically speaking, it always does.

So they move somewhere else and get their cheap labor there for a while, until it happens there, too. What happens when we run out of places willing to work under those conditions? Long-term, this model just doesn't work.

When we run out of place that are willing to work under such conditions, we should all rejoice because we would finally have ended absolute poverty in the world.

[Admiral Yi]

So they move somewhere else and get their cheap labor there for a while, until it happens there, too. What happens when we run out of places willing to work under those conditions? Long-term, this model just doesn't work.

We substitute more capital for labor.

[merithyn]

I'm not so certain that it would help the local economy in anything but the short-term.  It will certainly help specific groups in the local economy, but if people lack the means to purchase some items because they're spending more to buy some goods locally...

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Maybe going local for a while is what's necessary to rebuild the middle-class so that the next model can take us to the next level.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, but those people aren't slaves.  They actually want those jobs.  There is a great talk about the evils of sweat shops and the like, but it turns out, most of those people actually want those jobs.  There are exceptions and where people are forced into unfree labor, but generally speaking, they want those jobs.  It's a hell of lot easier and safer then farming and you get much more cash.  An excellent example is The Kathie Lee Gifford sweatshop scandal in the 1990's.  When it was revealed her line of clothing was being made in Central American sweatshops.  She tearfully apologized and they closed down the factories.  You know who was really pissed?  The average workers, who while making pitiful wages by American standards, were making several times the national average.

Absolutely true. Just as Americans wanted the sweat-shop jobs of the late Victorian era. But after a while they realized that there were other options - better pay, safer work environments, etc. - and they organized and demaned more. That will happen here, too. Historically speaking, it always does.

So they move somewhere else and get their cheap labor there for a while, until it happens there, too. What happens when we run out of places willing to work under those conditions? Long-term, this model just doesn't work.

Why not?   If you run out of places with cheap labor then you might have circumstances like the US economy in the 1950's, or Germany for the last few decades.

[dps]

I think this is already starting to happen.  In part because of a cultural reaction against globalisation towards more 'authentic' products.  It is, as it should be, a consumer choice that isn't necessarily antagonistic to global trade.

It's interesting that something that sounds so old fashioned to a large extent depends on modern technology.  I like that aspect of it.

The author advocated government restraints to sort of force the issue, but I disagree completely with that. I think it should be an organic movement, if it should happen.

See, this is the problem.  Raz is correct, most people are simply going to go for the cheaper alternative, and 95% of the time, that's not going to be the local alternative.  You'd have to dictate that "choice" for people, or at least provide strong incentives, such as prohibitively high tarrifs.

[Razgovory]

I seem to recall this happening before, with all of us jumping on Meri for unsound ideas.

[Habbaku]

I seem to recall this happening before, with all of us jumping on Meri for unsound ideas.

To be fair, it's just some garden-variety, hippie protectionist's unsound ideas.

[merithyn]

See, this is the problem.  Raz is correct, most people are simply going to go for the cheaper alternative, and 95% of the time, that's not going to be the local alternative.  You'd have to dictate that "choice" for people, or at least provide strong incentives, such as prohibitively high tarrifs.

Right now there's a movement in this direction in a number of local areas. Some have even created local currencies to use for local products, and using it gives them a discount. The incentive is a backlash against corporate greed, or so they claim. It's an organic movement at the local level to boycott the "1%". Unfortunately, I think this may be going too far.

[merithyn]

I seem to recall this happening before, with all of us jumping on Meri for unsound ideas.

How odd. I am asking questions and advocating nothing, and yet this is your response. Well thought-out and useful, as usual, Raz.