Such a tariff could make US products more competitive. This would be because a duty was imposed or it would be because foreign manufacturers did improve safety and health for their workers and passed that expense on to the consumer. It could make it more expensive for our industry to relocate manufacturing overseas. It could be good PR for the USA. and actually do some good.
-- hangingchad, Jan 12 2004

Definition of Tariff http://www.dolally....ion.asp?Word=Tariff
To end any confusion as to what is meant by "tariff" [hangingchad]

A good reason for tariffs http://www.delocorp.net/trade/page2.html
For the U.S., anyway. [hangingchad, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]

A good reason for tariffs http://www.delocorp.net/trade/page2.html
For the U.S., anyway. [ldischler, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]

Isn't this just a variation on the ideas of consumer boycotts of companies (e.g. Nike) and nations (e.g. Burma) who are deemed unpleasant, and international sanctions (e.g. against Saddam's Iraq, Libya, Zimbabwe)? People have been boycotting Nike and other companies for many years over the way they treat far-eastern workers.

However, international sanctions have proved a very slow weapon in achieving policy goals, and consumer boycotts against foreign nations tend not to be effective either. So while this is idealistic, I doubt whether it would have the desired effect.
-- kropotkin, Jan 13 2004


I was so hoping this was a Dr Zhivago gag, more's the pity [hangingchad]. What [UB] said about PR - this is anticompetitive and would worsen the already unfair trading field.
-- neilp, Jan 13 2004


The general pattern seems to be that a relatively poor foreign country can undercut domestic goods by using cheap labour and poor working conditions. As they gain market share and become more profitable that tends to raise the living standards of the workers. Eventually they can no longer compete on price alone and have to look to issues like quality etc which require more skillfull workers retained for longer and this further enhances the production workers' environment. I suspect these kind of market forces are far more influential than trade wars.
-- dobtabulous, Jan 13 2004


Trade war? Boycott? Seems to me that if we can forbid the importation of Ivory or leapord skins etc. in the interest of the animals we are in the right if we simply make it more expensive for offshore producers to endanger the health and safety of their workers. I think it would be interesting to see what arguments the "victimized nations" use.
-- hangingchad, Jan 13 2004


Thanks for the shout [ub] I put up a new link and it works for me
-- hangingchad, Jan 15 2004


+ The idea of tariffs is excellent, and sending the OSHA idiots overseas is even better.
-- ldischler, Jan 15 2004


[Idischler] OSHA has problems. The OSHA inspectors will sweat the little stuff -- $10,000 fine for a frayed extension cord -- but do virtually nothing to prevent some poor apprentice plumber from being buried alive in an unshored trench. Guess it's easier to pay a visit and look for material that is not up to spec. than to make a surprise visit to the construction site where the rule is "do it our way or bye bye." I was thinking more of the OSHA requirements for worker safety and health. I don't know who would be charged with determining under what conditions goods were produced in a foreign country.
-- hangingchad, Jan 15 2004


Apart from the issues of wage rates, worker safety, etc., the continued reduction of tariffs has had enormous negative consequences for the US. See the second link, above.
-- ldischler, Jan 15 2004


//raise the living standards of the workers//

Raise the living standards of the holders of capital mostly. I'm sure it does slowly trickle down. A safe workplace tarrif seems fair enough.
-- Zimmy, Mar 08 2006



random, halfbakery