This article critiques the agenda that the IMF had set out on the impact of globalization on workers and their trade unions. It starts out by discussing the positive and negative aspects of globalization and how these will play a role in what the IMF has set to accomplish. It discusses the importance of fulfilling certain aspects to make sure that globalization benefits all keeping in mind what developing countries want. Trade unions in many Asian countries have great difficulty in establishing workers' rights to organize where one and a half billion live off of less than one dollar per day. Countries in Latin America worry about implications of trade liberalization for workers and their trade unions as well as complaining about privatization of public enterprises. Not only is there an issue in developing countries, but industrial countries as well such as the increase of unemployment in the U.S. The importance of this article is to show social solidarity and how due to competition it becomes impossible to fulfill in today’s world. “We have a responsibility to help promote fair income transfers, from the rich to the poor, the healthy to the sick and from employed to the unemployed.” (Camdessus)
This relates to what we had talked about in class on globalization and the 2016 election. This article stuck out to me because of Loomis’ argument where he eventually wanted globalization to help foreign workers, and that it needed to be done correctly. Yes this is ideal, but I think this article does a great job in showing the complexity of this issue. Globalization of capital moving overseas means loss of output, trade, and employment on the home front. This is where the 2016 election comes into play, and why a lot of the working class citizens in the U.S. voted for Trump. One of Trump’s main focal points in the election was that he was going to bring the jobs back to the U.S, and is why the silent majority in rural areas of every state voted Trump. As we had talked about in class, businesses were being outsourced to developing countries in order to avoid regulations in the U.S. after the 1911 Triangle fire. This therefore causes problems for the environment and domestic labor in developing countries. The question is if corporations will bring jobs back to the U.S. and risk losing money by following those regulations. I think that by the time these jobs come back to the U.S. it wouldn’t benefit the original people who lost these jobs to outsourcing. Therefore, building on Camdessus’ social solidarity, and improving working conditions for developing countries will result in a better outcome. According to Camdessus this will help unemployed people at home, and give foreigners safe and stable jobs fulfilling Loomis’ goals.
I agree with your assertion that the people who lost their jobs to overseas are not the ones who will be getting them back. The jobs that are overseas are the factory jobs that chances are will not come back here and even if they do, will only be here for a short period of time as technology develops. Chances are, the job growth of America is going to continue to be concentrated in Silicone Valley and such places. Therefore, we will need social programs in place still for those who did lose their jobs initially. I also agree with improving working conditions across the world for economic as well as moral reasons. People deserve to be treated better regardless of the country they are in and it will be in the best interest of the world economy to do so.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem that often comes with globalization is the "one size fits all" mind set. Often it is believed that one set of economic policies can help the entire world develop. However I believe that an economic policy that might benefit South America, is totally different from one that benefits Africa. I do however agree that bringing back jobs that have been lost to outsourcing will not help american workers. I often think that there is a stigmatism in the american work force that some jobs are beneath certain people.
ReplyDeleteA couple of things: globalization causing a loss of jobs or commercial output on domestic borders isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it can spur the incentive for a couple of economic improvement factors, like education and the investment in more difficult, high-skilled jobs. Moreover, there was a mentioning that there might be a need for a larger safety net/set of social programs. Might that be counterintuitive since that doesn't create capital but rather takes money from things like taxes and government funding? There must be a market-related solution.
ReplyDelete