WHAT IS THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM?
Bosses force workers and governments to either surrender to their demands or
risk loss of jobs and tax revenues.
Investors can easily move their money to nations with cheap wages and lax
regulation. Most workers cannot afford to learn Swedish and move accross the
world.
A Wall Street Journal survey in 1992 reported that one-fourth of almost 500
American corporate executives polled admitted that they were “very likely” or
“somewhat likely” to use NAFTA as an excuse to hold down wages.(Tonelson 2000,
47). A study of union organizing drives in 1993-95 found that over 50% of all
employers made threat to close all or part of their plants during organizing
drives (Bronfenbrenner 1997b) The threat rate increased from 62% to 68% in
mobile industries such as manufacturing, communications, and wholesale
distribution.
"What they say to workers, either directly or indirectly, is if you ask
for too much or don’t give concessions or try to organize, strike, or fight for
good jobs with good benefits, we’ll close, we’ll move across the border just
like other plants have done before " says Bronfenbrenner.
The threats made to workers are also made to governments. In the end, jobs
are more important than ballots - the investors are in control, not voters. This
is why politicians pretend to be liberal (or "compassionate conservatives")
during elections, yet move rightward as soon as the election ends. This makes
people, especially liberals, apathetic and lacking hope. For example, 74% of
Americans agreed with Al Gore when he attacked corporations. However, only 51.2%
of Americans actually voted.
(Footnote: http://www.businessweek.com:/2000/00_37/b3698004.htm
At the recent Democratic convention, Vice-President Al Gore criticized a wide
range of large corporations, including "big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters,
the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs." Do you agree or disagree with Gore's
sentiments?
Strongly agree 39%
Somewhat agree 35%
Strongly disagree
13%
Somewhat disagree 9% )
The race to the bottom also happens within nations: between 1973 and 1997 7
million jobs went from the worker-friendly Northern States to the
business-friendly Southern States. (http://www.epn.org/faq/index1.html#jobs)
Sometimes the rich are not satisfied with just moving their money, and
emmigrate. ("Brain drain") Since so many jobs involve serving rich people,
workers must follow them ("strain drain").
Wealthfare
As corporations use the race to the bottom to gain power, government handouts
in the form of special-interest spending and tax subsidies are used make them
stay put.
The Progressive Policy Institute has identified $225 billion worth of
"corporate welfare" - questionable, special-interest spending and tax subsidies
- in the USA alone. It has also called ffor Congress to save $265 billion over 5
years by eliminating or scaling back 120 specific programs. However, the PPI can
hardly threaten to move to Mexico.
Investors, who claim to hate the effects of "politics" are happy to vote with
their investments. Politicians have no need to actually create jobs, when they
can simply steal jobs from worker-friendly, "uncompetetive" places. This why
Alberta, Canada (Their actual slogan - "The Alberta advantage" is a
race-to-the-bottom reference) is growing in wealth and population (profitable
price-gouging in the oil industry is also a factor). Workers come here to find
the jobs that were stolen from their communities.
There is no reason wealthy nations and areas should have different standards
and policies from each other. We all need a living wage and safe meat -
Albertans are the same species as Swedes or Japanese. However, they might fear
having to compete on their own merits, instead of simply using politics to
undercut everyone else.
But we have to stay competetive!!!!
Interestingly, when neos are not telling rich nations to be more competetive,
they are telling us not to expect labor standards in the third world because the
third world needs to be competetive. If they actually cared about the third
world, they would want rich nations to have higher standards, so that the poor
can have an edge.
If neoism is so bad why do some poor people support it?
Neoism is a vicious cycle. The effects of neoism mean that the poor get less
from government. Meanwhile sales taxes mean they pay more. Then neos tell them
that government is not worth the cost.
For example, in Canada, funds to healthcare were cut by neos, causing
suffering and in some cases people crossing the border for surgery. Then
American neos used this as "proof" that public health was not worth it!
This is the same sort of "siege tactics" used by terrorists - people choose
between people dieing due to underfunded healthcare (letting the seige go on) or
people dieing under profit-health (surrendering to plunder).
Of course, lack of education in critical thinking, (thanks to neos)
monopolistic corporate media (no antitrust action thanks to neos) and religious
indoctrination by billionare preachers (people turn to religious fundamentalism
when they suffer - "there are no atheists in foxholes") play their part as well.
People who lack education base their opinions on pointless
personal anictodes, so this one is for them: my brother needed his appendix
removed, but the underfunded hospital said it was not urgent because "he was not
in enough pain". His appendix burst, and it cost MORE to clean up.
Does democracy require wealth?
After the Seattle protests put neos under the spotlight, they have tried to
redefine their institutions as charities that intend to create democracy. This
is strange, seeing that "political freedom, once established, has a tendency
to destroy economic freedom." according to neo godfather Milton Friedman.
While police were busily gassing protestors outside, Bush said "Trade
creates growth which creates democracy" . This marxist-style
economic-determanist claim basically goes like this:
1. Neosim creates growth.
2. In the poor countries, this means
industrialization.
3. Industrial development creates a middle class,
4.
which agitates for democracy instead of authoritarianism.
1. Is disproved nation-by-nation in this FAQ.
2. Neoism has only meant
more unskilled low-paid laboring. Industralization needs high paid workers worth
replacing with machines.
3. Neoism leads to a very rich and very poor class.
The rise of the middle class in the west happened during the 40s and 50s, eras
of unionization. Neos, of course, oppose unions.
4. In the west, democracy
was achieved before industrialization. When the US constitution was written,
most Americans were farmers. India is a democracy, especially the province of
Kerala, where there is no starvation dispite being one of the poorest places on
Earth. Meanwhile, some of the most vicious dictatorships were industrially
developed: Nazi Germany was industrialized, and the USSR only collapsed after
economic downturn, not economic growth.
Conclusion: The neo claim that democracy is impossible without wealth is just
an excuse for keeping the poor under "competetive" dictatorships.
Will trading with dictators turn them to democrats?
Ever since appeasement failed to stop Hitler, people have not wanted to do
business with dictators. For example, a boycott of South Africa played a part in
the ending of Apartied. Neos, however, say that we should instead do
"constructive engagement", because trade will introduce "ideas". Just how
democratic ideals are contained in shipment of oil, or electric chairs, is not
explained. Historically the arrival of a shipload of maskara has not put people
in the streets calling for revolution. And why the same process only goes one
way and would not "introduce us to ideas of dictatorship" is a bit vague.
Nazi Germany and fascist Italy ("they got the trains running on time") were
both popular with investors. For example, much of the Bush family fortune came
from investing in nazism. After the war, investors opposed democracy in Japan.
While there are examples of failed embargos - Cuba and Iraq come to mind -
the idea of "constructive engagement" is too dangerous to avoid. We landed
soldiers on D-day, not a shipment of deoderant and Cheese-wiz.
Yet neos, who have succeeded because people have forgotten the lessons of the
great depression and the New Deal, are depending on us forgetting the lessons of
appeasement.
