Treating Workers Like People?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/11/a-new-business-strategy-treating-employees-well/383192/

The article cited above references corporations that are working to treat their empolyees like people and not having their needs or wants come in last place. As we discussed in class, the mistreatment of workers has had a long history in both the U.S. and around the world. Many corporations seem to believe that profits must be made this way. However, I do not believe this to be the case. As this article referenced, there is a long-term view for these companies that treat their workers with respect and dignity. As the world spreads information more and more rapidly, gaining a good reputation becomes more important for companies. People do not look to work at companies they have heard horrible things about when they know of other options where they can be paid more and treated better.

These companies are forming these policies and ideas without national or international regulations demanding that they do such. These companies make a great deal of profit and have been around as long as (and longer than many) companies that treat their workers horribly. Obviously, a profit is important in the world of business but these corporations have realized that by treating employees better they have a higher productivity, are more likely to stay, and gain more qualified employees in the long run as well.

What Globalization means for Developing Countries, and the Effects on the Home Front with the 2016 Election (Post for 11/20/16)

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/spmds9613

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.  

Economists Take Aim at Wealth Inequality

In a New York Times article, Nelson D. Schwartz attempts to tackle the global phenomenon of growing income inequality and understand new perspectives as to why it's growing and shaping both the national and global economy. It first comes with economists acknowledging the indisputable truth that the percentage of income being earned by the top one percent is going up while wages for the rest of the country are relatively stagnant. Nicholas Bloom points to inequality being magnified by technological change and what's known as skill bias, where workers with a particular expertise reap the biggest reward. Moreover, Enrico Moretti points to the fact that state tax increases prompt the highest earners to move to lower-tax locations. In addition, Bloom found a sharp divergence between pay at the most successful companies and also-rans in the same field. The highest-paid workers cluster at the winners, heightening income disparities in the overall work force. Bloom and Moretti acknowledge that the free market itself won't be able to solve this income inequality conundrum, and most academics are leery of any solution and academics' traditional tools are inadequate for the task.

I wanted to write about this article for this week's blog because it presents a couple of problems that have origins in the setup of traditional capitalism, are explicitly acknowledged in Marxism, but neither have clear solutions. Marxism argues that, in essence, the economy is negative-sum and a game of exploitation of the poor by the rich. As the rich get richer and the poor don't get any richer, this argument becomes increasingly more numerically evident. Who's to say growth is a tide that rises all ships? Although this argument exists, there's also the argument for skill bias; those who are more skilled will earn more wages. One can argue that that's simple competition. If you're better at what you do, you'll be be compensated more than the person who's less competent. Who's to say that's unfair? Same goes with more successful companies having people who make more wages. If the company is better than another company in the same industry, there's going to be a larger flow of capital and therefore more wages distributed. Although this may hold true, Moretti also points that those with more money have more opportunities to work around the tax system, creating even more of a divergence. So this leads to the broad and difficult question: If the free market itself won't fix income inequality, what can the government do? Marxist beliefs have been proven to be too extreme and detrimental to the economy, but there needs to be some form of regulation to ensure fair competition and ensure that workers will be compensated fairly for the amount of work they're doing. How much, exactly, is still to be determined.

Wealth Inequality in America

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/sunday/3-tvs-and-no-food-growing-up-poor-in-america.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=2



I read this article over the past week and it spoke to me on many levels. The article talks about what I believe is a untouched and pushed aside topic in American Politics, Child Poverty. The article talks about several children who live in poverty and what their life is like. A day in the life includes, trying to stay away from recruitment into gangs, the temptation of drugs and other substances, stealing to get by, being too embarrassed to go to school because of the close they are wearing, and going to bed wondering when their next meal will come. The article states that "The United States has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the industrialized world." with, about 1/5 of children living in low income and poverty situations. This is a serious struggle and problem in our society that not only no one wants to talk about, but also it is a problem that many do not have a solution for. 

I think this applies a lot to what we have been learning in class in regards to wealth inequality. I believe that often times ideas are centered around the international community, and that is what our class focuses on. But wealth inequality is very damaging even in America. Often times I hear the phrase "poor people in America really aren't poor". But I think that this phrase is untrue and hits America just as much as other countries. I believe that this can also tie into some of the critiques of Free trade. America is a society that has virtual free trade, yet even the people who live in the US don't seem to be benefitting. 

Marxism in the Modern World

http://marxiststudent.com/solidarity-with-south-african-students-feesmustfall/

This article was taken from a website kept by a group of students in England in support of Marxist ideas worldwide. They write a series of articles about social movements all over the world from this perspective. This article is written in criticism of the Republic of South Africa and supporting the student movement of fees must fall. The government stated that fees would not rise again after 2015. However, the fees have been raised multiple times since then. Students started this movement to demand that university must be cheaper in order for more students of color to afford a higher education and bring an end to the racial/economic divide left over after the end of Apartheid in 1994. The article also sites government corruption and bribery occurring in the country. The article also discusses the violence that is being done against the students in these movements.

In class we have discussed the Marxist ideals. I did not realize these ideals were still alive and well within the world but this website seems to show otherwise. I became familiar with this movement while I was at a University in South Africa and witnessed the anger and frustration with the current governmental policies surrounding higher education. The students who write this website work to educate people about how inequality and corruption is causing suffering throughout the world. This inequality is causing divides, violence, and revolts in many countries throughout the world. In my view, inequality is not the answer to the economic development of individual countries or the world as a whole. Equality should be the goal as it assists in the development of people as well as industries and countries. Marxism is an ideal way to view the world but that does not mean it is not to be strived toward.

Reconstructing the Definition of Peace and what Globalization can contribute

http://www.polity.co.uk/up2/pdf/sample_chapter.pdf

Worldwide globalization can cause a new definition of what peace means especially to a state's citizens’ which will eventually democratize other nations as well following on the track of peace and globalization. In “Peace Operations in Global Politics,” the article discusses the importance of how globalization has affected the way peace is portrayed amongst states. With states being interconnected because of globalization it brings new issues to all states as well. Peace is difficult to conceptualize because it can mean a number of different things such as peace meaning no war, but then is a nation who has its citizens socially enslaved in peace? This is the difficulty that globalization introduces because if states are interdependent on one another, the other has the responsibility to create peace for that nation. Competition amongst states has caused a great deal of disadvantage towards citizens of a particular state. If democratic states are unlikely to result to war then that means states take on more responsibility. If a state doesn’t take care of its citizens then it becomes another state's responsibility. These responsibilities in return can cause more hardships for a particular actor in the world economy. For some states peace isn’t the best solution where war can be which represents the difficulty in maintaining peace in today’s collectivity of globalization.  

In class we had talked about how war today is not a common event in world politics and how this can be from globalization. Without war means there is peace, but is peace desirable in today’s world? Peace can equal domination such as North Korea or any authoritarian state. The argument is whether globalization can change the meaning of peace, causing countries to democratize and unite together. A decrease in war globally in today’s world means there are other issues states have to deal with. In Peace Operations in Global Politics, “Peace operations need to be in the business of protecting human rights where host states prove unwilling or unable to do so, and of helping to build states capable of fulfilling their responsibilities in the long term.” If more responsibility is what creates peace then globalization should be effective since it is what liberal and democratic states have created. Therefore, globalization has been the factor for peace and the decrease of war. Even though there are difficulties with how globalization is conducted, there are still benefits rather than resorting to war. States should be able to take on more responsibility, and focus on uniting together instead of going against each other.

Brexit and the WTO

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-trade-idUSKCN1220GF

The above article discusses the need for Britain to negotiated a new deal with the WTO. Because they were part of the EU, they themselves did not have a deal with the WTO. So they must negotiate new deals with the other nations and have them approved. Trade Minister Liam Fox said that " terms with the World Trade Organization will not be simple but should be done in a way that causes minimal disruption to global trade". He also believes that because Britain was a founding member and is in good standing they will not need to re-apply for membership.

This is one thing that I had not thought about with the Brexit vote. I knew that Britain would have to re-negotiate trade deals and certain things with each EU member. But I did realize that they would have to do the same thing for the WTO, because the EU is just one body. I think this will be a lot on their plate having to negotiate deals with both the EU and every country in the WTO. What also makes this a difficult task for them is that the WTO is not necessarily a place where things get done fast. As we talked about last class, the WTO has had the DOHA round waiting for approval for almost 20 years. This is not a very speedy process, which is something that Britain is hoping for. While I believe this will not be an easy task for them to complete, I think that it is completely doable.