Imagine if you will,
a place called Sunshine Bay.
Little known to those who swim and bathe at Sunshine Bay is the nasty undertow on the beach's outskirts...On a regular basis swimmers find themselves dragged out too far, struggling for their lives without hope of rescue (see picture)...Fortunately though there is a helicopter (owned by a company called Heli-life Inc.) that always arrives just in time to drop a life-preserver to would-be-drowning-victims, saving them from a horrible death...The catch? Before the life-preserver is dropped, the Heli-life representative shouts down from the chopper that the price of the rescue is $10,000...After the would-be-drowning-victim agrees to the charge, the life-preserver is dropped.
Follow-up questions:
(1) Are the people better off with or without Heli-life's services?
a place called Sunshine Bay.Little known to those who swim and bathe at Sunshine Bay is the nasty undertow on the beach's outskirts...On a regular basis swimmers find themselves dragged out too far, struggling for their lives without hope of rescue (see picture)...Fortunately though there is a helicopter (owned by a company called Heli-life Inc.) that always arrives just in time to drop a life-preserver to would-be-drowning-victims, saving them from a horrible death...The catch? Before the life-preserver is dropped, the Heli-life representative shouts down from the chopper that the price of the rescue is $10,000...After the would-be-drowning-victim agrees to the charge, the life-preserver is dropped.
Follow-up questions:
(1) Are the people better off with or without Heli-life's services?
(2) Is Heli-Life Inc. acting immorally, illegally or is this sound business?
(3) What if Heli-life starts charging $10,000,000 a rescue?
Extra Credit:
What if Sunshine Bay is owned by Heli-life Inc. and coincidentally fails to post legible signs about the undertow and (despite his incompetence) continues to give the life-guard excessive paychecks which they know he uses, in part, to feed his worsening booze addiction?
(3) What if Heli-life starts charging $10,000,000 a rescue?
Extra Credit:
What if Sunshine Bay is owned by Heli-life Inc. and coincidentally fails to post legible signs about the undertow and (despite his incompetence) continues to give the life-guard excessive paychecks which they know he uses, in part, to feed his worsening booze addiction?
Answer these quietly in your head.
Read my explanation in the comment section.
Vote below.
Read my explanation in the comment section.
Vote below.
By Robert - 8/06/2005
9 Comments:
The preceding analogy was starring:
Corporate America as Heli-life.
3rd-world laborer as would-be-drowning victim.
Despot 3rd-world leader as life-guard.
The reason that I pose this analogy, is that I just finished a stint in Bolivia (thus my absence). As one traveller we met put it, "Bolivia is like 100 years behind, you know?"
This was an understatement.
Apparently, one thing that never lets up for long here is the street protests. My understanding is that impoverished Bolivians are fighting against the sale of the nation’s gas reserves by their govt. to American energy companies for pennies on the dollar. The govt. has the habit of using deadly force to quiet the protests.
I am no expert on the situation in Bolivia. My hypothetical is not based specifically on this example either. I only pose it, to ask the question in the most general sense:
When do corporations cross the line between sound capitalism and inexcusable exploitation?
Oh yeah, the life preserver is a crappy manufacturing job that pays less than a livable wage.
And while I'm at it...let me be more specific. The real question is:
When do corporations cross the line between sound capitalism and inexcusable explotation IN REGARDS TO over-seas manufacturing in countries without laws protecting workers like those we have in the states.
(Also the situation in Bolivia is not intended to be an example. I only mentioned it because it got my thinking about the pros and cons of free trade.)
I think you raise the larger issue of the global market having no conscious. This is why American manufacturing cannot compete fairly in a free market that is in many places is far from free. Safe travels Bob.
For the record, I'm liking John Roberts more and more.
Now hold on a second.....
How does this anology actually relate to reality again?
The way I see it, 3rd world labor has always been "drowning" it's not like bolivia had the "the good old days" where everyday life was like a "leave it to beaver" episode; before corporate america bought them out and expoited them.
Also, how is it that a GOVERNMENT selling oil for pennies on the dollar is capitalism or free trade?
I don't understand why liberals cannot view manufacturing jobs in 3rd world countries as a choice for these people. How is it that extra employment oppertunities can hurt? Have you ever actually researched the opinions of 3rd world laborers? You should.
Look at Taiwan! Corporate America used to "exploit" the Taiwanese, but our presence brought capital to their people, skills, technology, and education. Now their economy rocks. The same thing is happened in India, it is happening everywhere that is embracing actual free trade? And don't forget about Mexico. 65 % of their workers make products that are exported to the U.S.
Let's not use examples of corrupt governments who are certainly not engaging in anything that resmbles free trade.
Kyle is right that free markets do not have a conscious. But placing labor regulations on a 3rd world country makes them non-competitive, and guaruntees that jobs will not be created their, thus ensuring continued poverty. The only way to ensure that a labor force is treated well is to make workers competitive. To do that, these people need jobs, they need skills, and they need training.
Your arguement underlines the importance of trading freely with impovershed nations. Free trade gives individuals the freedom to ascend out of poverty and into the developed world. Taking a that "life jacket" is clearly the only choice for these people, I fail to see what good it would do take it away from the people who need it. And that $10,000 price tag? Give me a break. When Nike moves in, these people will be lining up for the jobs. Cafta is a blessing for these people.
Just ask India.
Well, I was expecting a response from Jeff along these lines and I must say, this one was even better than I anticipated. My response:
Surprisingly, I am FOR corporate America moving manufacturing jobs overseas as apposed to trying to stay state-side just to appease the (often) greedy, self-serving unions. I understand that we, as consumers, benefit and that the 3rd world worker benefits in the long run as well...
AS LONG AS
...the cycle that I laid out in my analogy is avoided [which I will give a specific example of below].
Before the example, let me first say that I don't think that this cycle is the norm. Maybe it is an extreme rarity. Maybe one in a hundred, or a thousand. I, like Jeff, am not an expert on the matter. I only hoped to raise the philosophical question (as I think I originally worded it): WHEN do corporations cross the line between sound capitalism and inexcusable exploitation? WHEN?
It seems to me that Jeff might answer 'never.'
I would answer 'when the corporation, in cahoots with the local government, actively suppress workers who are fighting for rights that we consider basic in the states.'
Now, let me throw out an example:
One extreme (but viable) example of the cycle that I have heard of is...a corporation provides jobs that, as you said, are anxiously snatched up by impoverished, willing workers. The corporations provide dorms and meals which they automatically dock from the workers pay...eventually the workers, despite busting their ass, find themselves actually going into debt, being forced to work ungodly hours with nothing more to show for a months work than the poop in the pot and callus hands. The workers try to organize, protest or leave and the corporation turns a blind eye (or works hand-in-hand) with the local government who, being handsomely bribed, puts down the protests with force.
This hypothetical (as uncommon as it may be) I would consider an example of how "extra employment opportunities can hurt," and why WE need to police our conscienceless companies over seas.
The above scenario would be a problem, however, I find it pretty unlikely.
Any country where exploitation of workers is so easy is going to be fertile ground for other corporations that need cheap labor. Get employment rates up in these countries, and corporations no longer have the luxury of choosing where these laborors have to work.
Capitalism often works in ugly ways, but it works; it is also the only system that is compatible with a truly free society.
The sooner these people are empowered with choice, the better.
Just in case anyone is still reading this thread...
Jeff, you say, "get employment rates up in these countries and corporations no longer have the luxury of choosing where these laborers have to work."
What happens though if the corporations see their cheap labor slipping away in their newly built, multi-million dollar facility and realize that it is more cost effective to bribe local officials, buy and dismantle competing job providers and have union leaders assassinated than relocate?
Do you trust that the high level execs, faced with these decisions, always do the right thing?
I don't.
In closing, let me move from the purely hypothetical and give a very common, real life example of another situation when "extra employment opportunities hurt."
Doug, the American tourist, goes on vacation to Thailand. He is approached by a young girl, no older than 11 who offers him a blow job behind a nearby dumpster for 25 cents.
He says 20 cents.
She accepts.
There are no laws (or at least zero enforcement) against sex tourism in parts of South East Asia. So no law is broken. Doug is happy and the Thai girl is richer. Everyone wins.
Doug returns home and starts a travel agency called Barely Legal Inc. in which he arranges perfectly legal sex with children for sicko, international tourists over the Internet.
Eventually, enough Thai children will give enough 20 cent blow jobs behind dumpsters to lift the country up to first world status.
Right?...Right?
Despite no law being broken and consent by both parties, this isn't sound capitalism. This is a very real example of inexcusable exploitation that exists, like it or not, in the world today.
Capitalism is fantastic, but corporations (that are inherently conscienceless) absolutely need to be regulated.
I don't see why any government would take a bribe to dismantle competing employers. I imagine that these governments are in the business of taking bribes to allow corporations to employee their cheap labor without government interference. It would be more in their interest to allow as many corporations as possible to build plants on their land, and it looks to me like that is exactly waht is happening.
Are there many instances of governments being bought out by a single corporation? How many are there? If there are that would make for a government remarkably close to communism, and I guess the only cure then would be revolution.
Is it true that Thailand has no laws regarding the use of minors in sex tourism, and that if they do they are not inforced?
If that is the case, then that is a problem that the thai people need to adress rather than the USA.
Sure you can regulate corporations, and stop Barely Legal from exploiting young girls, but you haven't solved the problem, because all the dougs in the world can still go to thailand and get blow jobs.
The U.S. should not be in the business of setting labor standards throughout the world. This is obviously an example where almost all americans would agree that dougs business is extrememly unethical, but other examples aren't so black & white.
Skeptics of free trade are often worried about "the common good." But as a libertarian, I don't think it should be the government's role to secure "the common good" Rather, the government should set up a frame work where individuals can prosper, and adopt the life-style of their choosing.
Regulating corporations does nothing but strip people of their choices.
Post a Comment
<< Home