Skip to main content

View Diary: CT-Sen: McMahon wants to lower minimum wage (188 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, I meant only for American corporations (3+ / 0-)

    or corporations that want to sell goods in the USA.

    We all differ in ways that matter. But we're all the same in the ways that matter most.

    by plf515 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:09:57 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  With this qualification, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      plf515, hillgiant
      the point becomes fairly interesting, but it can still lead to the economic isolation of poor countries, which I don't think is in the best interests of either the poor countries or of the US: US staying away from economically engaging with developing countries (one way or the other) means that China, EU etc would probably grab market shares in those markets as they grow, instead of the US, and that WILL NOT be good for the US in the longer run.

      After significant thought and consideration, I have reached the view that a robust (and potentially feasible) approach for the US to trade in the global marketplace (while protecting and preserving American jobs) is to seek to do as Balanced Trade  (i.e. exports ≈ imports, with each and every trading partner) as possible with all countries, both developed and developing, with the volume of such balanced trade with any given country still being a variable.

      Also, I should point out to you that while the US' China trade is severely unbalanced (and needs to be brought into balance ASAP), that with India is small and relatively balanced, as documented here and the chart and table here for US trade deficits in 2010 through July. See also the China entires at the EPI's website for their take. So the inclusion of India in the "China and India" drumbeat we keep hearing is based essentially in artificially hyped up fear, instead of hard macroscopic trading facts, and it is unfair to point at India (for blame, fear, etc, depending on the eye of the beholder) without a soundly justified basis for doing so.

      India and America share a mutually beneficial trade and economic relationship.

      by iceweasel on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:16:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It still has issues. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SLKRR, balancedscales, plf515
      If you're just concerned with the US, it might be a good idea. I don't know enough to guess what the effects on our exports would be.

      But it's a raw deal for the low-wage countries. Most companies would pull out and economies would collapse. If they didn't you'd get those working in foreign corporations lived like kings while the rest of the country starved until inflation caught up.

      Cost of living is very different in different countries. Much of the wage disparity comes from this. If you can buy a decent meal for 50 cents, $7/hr is luxurious.

      Think of the effects of a similar law here. Raise the minimum wage to something like $200/hr. What would the effects be? Certainly we wouldn't all be rich.

      I'm all for using tariffs to enforce environmental and labor standards at least up to our level (and raising our level as well.) If workers aren't be forced or threatened, and they can organize, then they have control over their needs. At the moment, of course, none of that is true. That's how we could improve both our own economy and the world.

      The Empire never ended.

      by thejeff on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:20:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site