Attention: International business minds

[njsue]

Just trying to complete my homework before the game starts.

 

 

Thanks to all who attempt to help me.

 

Question is:

 

Unions in developed countries often oppose imports from low wage countries and advocate trade barriers to protect jobs from what they often characterize as

"unfair" import competition.

Is such competition "unfair"

\Do you think this argument is in the best interests of the unions?

The people they represent?

the country as a whole?

[ExiledInIllinois]

When you say "import" do you mean just the goods? What about "importing" labor (ie: open the borders)? I don't think they oppose that?

 

It can't be a one-way street. It has to be a two-way street to be fair. Or, throw up the protectionist barriers.

[njsue]

It is referring to products.

 

I got some info on why.

 

Affluent countries feel they have shell out more security to inspect goods coming from low wage countries.

But, could use some more info.

 

Trying to complete this today.

[whynot]

From the AFL-CIO website:

Globalization has not lived up to its promise of creating universal prosperity. Instead, it has produced a race to the bottom in which companies search the globe for the lowest possible labor costs and weakest environmental safeguards. Today’s global economy has greatly increased the income gap worldwide, making the rich even wealthier and eroding working families’ standard of living. Find out how issues in the global economy affect you and see how you can take action to make the global economy work for everyone.

 

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/globaleconomy/

 

I don't think the security issue is the heart of the union argument; it's more about wages (and to a lesser extent the environment.)

 

I would go to the source of the union argument, and then proceed to either agree or disagree with it...

[tennesseeboy]

Just trying to complete my homework before the game starts.

Thanks to all who attempt to help me.

 

Question is:

 

Unions in developed countries often oppose imports from low wage countries and advocate trade barriers to protect jobs from what they often characterize as

"unfair" import competition.

Is such competition "unfair"

\Do you think this argument is in the best interests of the unions?

The people they represent?

the country as a whole?

36619[/snapback]

 

I believe unions oppose these because the countries (Malaysia, Thailand, etc.) can produce because of unrealistic standards of payment (and living) for workers. In the long run however, the standards should even out (the standards and wages and benefits of American workers decrease, while the standards of third world workers increase.) In theory it isn't unfair. On the other hand, those who manufacture and benefit from the "unfair" imports (China, etc) will be getting into the ownership class and that will probably even out as well. We will no longer have a third world (of a first world...too bad for us!) but will probably have a more equitable and fair world. We will suffer in the short term, but we will be on a more equal footing with the rest of the world in the end.

 

That assumes that others will allow free trade. Oil rich countries, or countries that own the basis of production (perhaps even the cheap labor force) may see nothing in it in having free trade with "twentieth century countries" (Russia, USA and others) and form their own trade conglomerates (European Union, GUAAM, OPEC) and cut us out. That wouldn't be nice. However not very nice things have happened in the past.

[GG]

I believe unions oppose these because the countries (Malaysia, Thailand, etc.) can produce because of unrealistic standards of payment (and living) for workers.  In the long run however, the standards should even out (the standards and wages and benefits of American workers decrease, while the standards of third world workers increase.) In theory it isn't unfair.  On the other hand, those who manufacture and benefit from the "unfair" imports (China, etc) will be getting into the ownership class and that will probably even out as well.  We will no longer have a third world (of a first world...too bad for us!) but will probably have a more equitable and fair world. We will suffer in the short term, but we will be on a more equal footing with the rest of the world in the end.

 

That assumes that others will allow free trade.  Oil rich countries, or countries that own the basis of production (perhaps even the cheap labor force) may see nothing in it in having free trade with "twentieth century countries" (Russia, USA and others) and form their own trade conglomerates (European Union, GUAAM, OPEC) and cut us out.  That wouldn't be nice.  However not very nice things have happened in the past.

37946[/snapback]

 

................

 

The sound you just heard is me falling out of my chair.

 

 

[George Washington]

I am still working on this answer, but I have an outline done.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I am still working on this answer, but I have an outline done.

341066[/snapback]

 

 

Hey... GW. You have been lurking a while.

 

Welcome aboard. Glad to finally have you registered!

 

[KRC]

Hey... GW.  You have been lurking a while.

 

Welcome aboard.  Glad to finally have you registered!

 

341104[/snapback]

 

Maybe, he is just a slow typer. He is, afterall, 273 years old.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Maybe, he is just a slow typer. He is, afterall, 273 years old.

341106[/snapback]

 

I saw him on a re-run of Bewitched... He seemed pretty good at handling modern things?

 

Oh, wait... That was Ben Franklin.

 

[George Washington]

I saw him on a re-run of Bewitched... He seemed pretty good at handling modern things?

 

Oh, wait... That was Ben Franklin.

 

341130[/snapback]

 

I'm the original dubya. Eff the imposter in the house that should have been mine.