Moving Jobs Overseas--Will Elections Matter?

[marmar]

from the Working Life blog:



Moving Jobs Overseas--Will Elections Matter?

by Jonathan Tasini
Thursday 07 of October, 2010


Sure, elections do matter, at some level--it is no coincidence that, in the wake of Citizens United, a torrent of corporate money is flowing to mostly Republican candidates. But, the truth is that, whatever the results of the elections, we will not end up with a government willing to stop the global movement of jobs based on a single factor: how to find the lowest wage possible and exploit workers.

This is not news, frankly. But, I found this article instructive:

Though some American firms are bringing overseas work back home, evidence is growing that companies are moving more jobs than ever to China and other countries — a trend that could exacerbate efforts to bring down the nation's stubbornly high unemployment rate.
...
"The paradigm has shifted," said John Challenger, chief executive of outplacement and consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. "Most companies see the next phase or era of growth as global.... That'll still create jobs here, just not on the scale when they were focusing on growth in the U.S."
...
The offshoring of American production and jobs has been going on for more than two decades, with service firms more recently pushing the trend. Experts say more offshoring could help U.S. firms better compete in the global economy, thus boosting sales and profits that will sustain them and generate new business.

Here is what we learn: our political system is unwilling to stop labor arbitrage. That is, the selling and buying of the labor of human beings based on wage competition.

In the corporate world of job creation, the only discussion of "growth" has to do with "where can we find cheaper labor?"

The debate about manufacturing versus service jobs here has always been besides the point, in my opinion. We have plenty of manufacturing jobs here--the problem is that they are increasingly NON-UNION and lower-paid. We romanticize about "good paying manufacturing jobs"--which, pardon my French, were crappy, horrible, dangerous jobs in the beginning of the 20th Century--only because unions made those jobs good-paying jobs (and a bit safer too).

We could have a great service sector--if those jobs were unionized and paid a living wage. Which they largely are not and do not.

So, let's be clear: when "experts" (who are they?) say, "more offshoring could help U.S. firms better compete in the global economy, thus boosting sales and profits that will sustain them and generate new business", we are NOT talking about creating better jobs for people or a sustainable living wage.

We are only talking about increasing sales and profits for corporations.

I am all for mobilization around the election. And, yes, let's be clear--it will make a difference to many people who wins.

But, for the day after the election, where is the plan to demand from our party that we have an honest debate about the continued robbery of the American people, and of people around the globe?

Until we stop the foolishness of so-called "free trade" and drop the fiction that somehow we have "reformed" the financial system and end the charade around the Chinese currency and have a serious debate about the immorality of the level of the minimum wage, corporations will see elections as a blip and an annoyance, with some impact on the bottom line but hardly anything that stops the march to poverty.


http://www.workinglife.org/blogs/view_post.php?content_id=14990

[RKP5637]

1. We need public financing of campaigns, time limits for campaigning and a

drastic reduction in the lifetime benefits bestowed on congress. Until the bribery is ended in congress by corporate benefactors this crap will continue.

[marmar]

2. Indeed.

nt

[kenny blankenship]

3. Demand an honest debate from our party about the deliberate mass export of jobs?

they'd just punch you. Shut the fuck up, hippie.

[Rochester]

4. Well said

Until the government is willing to severely punish businessmen who make workers compete against each other and against foreigners, the hemorrhaging will continue.

[demosincebirth]

5. They will continue to go overseas until we get comprehensive laws that

make it easier for workers to organize. Untill then, you can kiss many of them goodbye.

[AdHocSolver]

6. You are putting the cart before the horse.

The unions are being downsized BECAUSE it is so profitable and easy to outsource jobs.

In the good old days, unions had clout because they could halt production and cut profits which gave corporations an incentive to bargain with the unions.

We see more and more unions giving up pay and benefits in order to keep their jobs because the companies threaten to outsource the jobs to low wage countries.

Increasing union membership will only happen when it becomes more costly, and hence, less profitable, to outsource jobs to low-wage countries.

To accomplish this, requires removing control of trade from the corporate monopolies. That means getting rid of NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, and their ilk. To do this requires that we put in place a Congress that isn't bought off by corporate interests.

That is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future when so many right wing stooges have gained traction with an increasingly dumbed down, and apathetic electorate.

Changes in the way things are done will only happen when a sufficiently large number of Americans are willing to act so as to take the profit out of outsourcing jobs.

The only workable solution is for Americans to refuse to buy products made in low wage countries and demand that stores stock American made products.