In the days following November’s elections, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman—an apologist for some of the worst aspects of corporate globalization and someone with whom we rarely agree—wrote this from China:
“Now that we've had an election that clarified which country is most important in shaping U.S. politics in 2006 -- Iraq -- I've come to visit the country that's most likely to shape U.S. politics in 2008: China.
“The civil war in the Republican Party, which you are about to see, will be all about Iraq -- whom to blame and how to withdraw before the issue wipes out more Republican candidates in 2008. But the coming civil war among the Democrats will be all about China.”
Although Friedman may be overly optimistic that US involvement in Iraq will be over and done with by 2008, he is right that China will be a central issue in the next election and that it could divide the Democratic Party.
Indeed, China has become the focal point of all of the insecurities that people feel about globalization. That insecurity played a major role in November’s election. Democrats’ running on economic populist platforms were able to sidestep dicey and divisive social issues and score significant gains among all sectors of a population increasingly worried its economic future.
In the dumbed-down world of public discourse and punditry there are two sides to the globalization debate: “free trade” and “protectionism.” This division, according to Friedman and others, is likely to split the Democratic Party, and we might add, organized labor, the Democrats’ key financial backer.
But the whole “free trade” vs. “protectionist” argument is deeply flawed. Traditional “free trade” is prescription for allowing huge global corporations to dominate the global economy and pit workers and communities against each other for scarce jobs. Traditional “protectionism” is unworkable in a global economy that has become increasingly integrated.
Writing recently in the Financial Times, AFL-CIO president John Sweeney shows how far beyond this simplistic “free trade vs. protectionism” debate the U.S. labor movement has gone:
“There has been much lamentation in recent weeks that America could take a turn towards protectionism in the wake of the US mid-term elections. Editorialists have weighed in with concerns that the new Congress will reject the so-called free trade policies of the Bush administration, stifling global growth and trampling the aspirations of the world's poor. "Free trade has definitely left the building," wrote Jacob Weisberg....
“This is not the end of free trade, but a much needed correction in course. The trade debate has changed dramatically in the past couple of decades, but many editorial writers and academic economists remain mired in the outdated debate about free trade versus protectionism. In this narrow view, any criticism of a proposed trade agreement, or rejection of a particular approach, is excoriated as isolationist, xenophobic, selfish and nationalist....
“Politicians who reject trade agreements that protect the profits of pharmaceutical companies at the expense of sick people in poor countries are neither protectionist nor anti-poor. Politicians who demand that trade agreements include enforceable protections for workers' rights are staking out a principled position for fairness in the global economy – not an end to trade. Fairer trade rules are essential to improving the lives of vulnerable and disenfranchised workers in developing countries, as well as the jobs and living standards of US workers.”
John Sweeney is, of course, correct both is his portrayal of the way debates about global trade rules are characterized in mainstream media and discourse, and in his call for a rejection of trade treaties in which the interests of global corporations are first and foremost.
Indeed, the problem with the current “trade debate” is even deeper. Today’s global economy can no longer be understood as a system of national economies trading with each other. For instance, 65% of the increase in trade between China and the US between 1994 and 2003 is “traceable to outsourcing by Chinese subsidiaries of multinational corporations and joint ventures,” according to Morgan Stanley’s chief economist Stephen Roach. The reality is that the trade gap with China is a trade gap with Wal-Mart, GE, and other global giants. And much of that trade gap is financed by China’s massive purchase of US government debt.
In short, the global economy is a complex system of global markets,
corporations, and institutions that cut across national boundaries.
“International trade” represents only a small part of the globalization
process. A global program based solely on saying no to trade treaties
is doomed to failure or at least irrelevancy and could leave the road
open to right-wing xenophobia and nativism.
Fortunately, the labor movement is well on the way to developing a
broader agenda, one that can represent the common interests of working
people in different countries and stymie the efforts of corporate
elites to play workers in different countries against one another.
Beyond “fair trade,” labor needs a program for “fair globalization.” The phrase “fair globalization” comes from a report from the International Labor Organization’s World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization – of which John Sweeney was a member.
The interests of labor lie in developing a “fair globalization” agenda that can mobilize people threatened by unfair forms of globalization here and abroad. Such a program would include action at the local, national, and global levels to create stable jobs, promote unionization, regulate the mobility of capital, strengthen the social safety net, negotiate fair trade standards, pass fair immigration laws, and establish decent development programs for poor countries.
In the coming months we will look at some of the particulars of what a “fair globalization” program might look like, how it might express the common interests of working people here and around the world, and how it might allow labor to take the lead in defining a new approach for America to the world economy.
M.O.
Is Globalization good for America? Arena seating and theater seating manufacturers go to third world countries.
The large outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing jobs that began years ago continues today. Michigan, a furniture manufacturing center, lost thousands of manufacturing jobs in the last few years. North Carolina experienced a similar fate, as has every state in the U.S.
U.S. seating manufacturers have in recent years outsourced and manufactured seating in third world countries, for example Mexico, China and Malaysia. However, Preferred Seating, located in Tennessee, is struggling upstream to supply manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. Preferred Seating wants to manufacture arena seating and theater seating in the U.S., create jobs and contribute to the U.S. economy.
The larger seating manufacturers who have the capital to build factories in third world countries make larger profit margins when they import seating parts from countries where labor and materials are less expensive. These companies argue that the public benefits from lower prices for their products. However, they sell their auditorium seating and theater seating for the same price as U.S. manufacturers, but make more profit. While these companies are making stronger sales, they are adding few jobs.
A seating manufacturer stated in “The Grand Rapids Press, Grand Rapids Michigan, Jan 23, 2005 the following:
“Absolutely, every company should be looking at China and offshore production, whether or not they actually do it. The good old days are just that – old, and the climate will never be the same. It’s now a global world where people don’t buy (just) from their country anymore. They buy the product that fits their needs, and a lot of it has to do with cost.”
While standards of living have increased as third world countries become more industrialized, they have fallen in developed countries. Was it not the industrialized revolution in the U.S. that contributed to the U.S. becoming a world super power? Losing our manufacturing base will make us more vulnerable to those countries we are allowing to manufacture our products.
Lower wage, unskilled earners are affected the most. They do not have skills that can be applied to other jobs. Education, with the ability to change careers, is the key to survival. The only answer that political and business leaders have agreed to so far is the necessity of an educated, adaptable workforce. But who is going to pay for the massive reeducation of the dislocated labor force, taxpayers?
We may enjoy lower pricing for products. Companies will make more of a profit by outsourcing. However, in my opinion the cost and risk to America is too great for the short term benefits.
Author: Billie Sumner
Preferred Arena Seating and Theater Seating
Indianapolis, Indiana
Tollfree 866-922-0226
http://www.preferred-seating.com
Posted by: Billie | September 22, 2007 at 11:38 PM