h a l f b a k e r yIt's the thought that counts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Well, here goes the rationale. Since multinational companies are good enough to put their plants into developing nations, how about paying the workers a set multinational rate too?
Minimum wages, set across national boundaries for multinationals to follow, and maximum working hour shifts and maximum
work weeks too. And all employee entitlements are in a common currency, so that if the local rupiah or baht(or whatever) crashes, the multinational still has to pay the same amount. And finally, a regulatory body that actually has teeth, and some real investgative ability, not a waste of time.
Just like early industrial England, some worker entitlements need to be taken care of, to prevent sweat shops.
I'm not talking about minimum $500 US and a 40 hour work week, just about some bottom line minimums, like $50 US a week. Enough to prevent all out poverty.
[link]
|
| |
The reason for putting plants in other countries is that the other countries cost less, once the factory is built. If you want to pay everyone who works for the company in the same job the same amount of money, then there's no point in putting plants elsewhere. Except possibly for the pollution factor. |
|
| |
Not that this is a BAD thing, but unlikely to work. |
|
| |
If the minimum wage is a *relative* value, it might work. |
|
| |
and I thought I had burnt my toast..... |
|
| |
This would probably wipe-out many of the business advantages of Globalisation. What you need is legislation to make it illegal for the likes of Nike to source from third world Elbonian sweatshops. Though the complexities of implementing/enforcing this probably prevent it ever being introduced. |
|
| |
Well, you always have the option not to buy from manufacturers who use Elbonian sweatshops (assuming you know who they are, of course). |
|
| |
The way I read the idea, ¯Sen_Rynaldvs, you are suggesting a price support for foreign labor to be paid as though a labor contract was in effect. Paid in $US or Euros or whatever the entity's local currency might be. One of the croissants above is mine. I do agree with some of the posters in offering my belief that the free marketplace will overrule your idea before it is ever implemented. The cost to multinational companies is too easily calculated, as is the unliklihood for great ascendancy of a developing economy relative to its markets. |
|
| |
If the local currency crashes, then the multinational company's pay will be worth more, comparitively. We should just forget money altogether and go back to bartering, without telling everyone we're doing it first. That should even things out a bit. Who wants to trade me for some Elbonian mud? |
|
| |
Are you familiar with the principle of comparative advantage? It is the underlying basis of trade. |
|
| |
Suppose Bob, the head of Bob's Widget Factory, was such an expert widget maker that his labor would be worth $50/hour if he spent his time on the line making widgets, but he was also expert at other jobs that were worth $90/hour. Further suppose Joe isn't nearly as good at making widgets as Bob (his labor, so applied, would only generate $10/hour of value) but he's better at making widgets than anything else; the next-best use of his labor would generate $7/hour of value. |
|
| |
If Bob needed $50 worth of widgets made, he could spend an hour of his own time to do it, or he could spend half an hour doing something else (thus earning $45), and then pay Bob $9/hour for five hours of work. |
|
| |
Bob has now gotten his widgets made with half as much work on his part, but Joe also benefits, since he got paid $45 for work that could have earned him AT MOST $35 doing anything else. |
|
| |
The principle of comparative advantage is responsible for most of the value generated in a modern economy. Too bad so few people understand it. |
|
| |
Multi-national companies only put their plants in LEDCs because of the cheap labour, not to be "nice". If a universal minimum wage was set, then they would simply move their business back to the mother country, where transport costs would, therefore be cheaper, and they would probably get better workers, too. |
|
| |
That is why the labour in LEDCs is so cheap - because 3rd world countries are all competing for work. |
|
| |
The problem could be solved by simply paying them a decent wage. However, the multi-nationals would never do this because they are too greedy. Darned FatCats. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. |
|
| |
I also smell a hint of comunism in the air... |
|
| |
i wonder with the euro starting up, what are the chances of a world wide "Credit" popping up. I think it'd be a good thing |
|
| |