H.R. 169: Balancing Trade Act of 2007

[Andy]

The skinny. 14 Southeast asian countries pledge to adhere to strict labor laws that include 3 month maternity leave, 8 hour work day, right to unionize, safe work environment and no child labor in exchange for no tariff on their garments which approximates to 17% of their costs.

The bill attempts to extend a trade act that expired in 2005. Cambodia in particular, flourished under the trade act with relatively good working conditions. Since the original trade agreement expired, work has moved to other nations that don't provide those same fair labor laws and protections.

What do you think of this particular bill in terms of economic philosophy? It also makes me wonder why a bill that has received support from both the liberal and conservative thinktanks died in 05 under a Republican House and in 07 under a Democratic house.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext...l=s110-652
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tradean...wm1578.cfm

[.RJ]

While I think good working conditions is certainly worth mandating - my question is why are we policing southeast asian countries?

[Ginger]

Nobody's policing anything... while I'd be in favor of just dropping the tariffs altogether, if this is what makes it happen, that's great! It's mostly a win win - strictly speaking, economically, it would be better without the "catch", but hey, I'd settle for it. (for the record, I didn't read the article, just what Andy wrote)

The question you should be asking, RJ, isn't "why would we be dropping tariffs for these worker's rights issues?" - it should, instead, be "why are these tariffs in place at all?"

[Andy]

While I think good working conditions is certainly worth mandating - my question is why are we policing southeast asian countries?

We're not necessarily policing them so much as they're asking us for this exemption so that they can be competitive in the marketplace. They're actually begging us for this. As it stands right now, China has quota limits on their garment exports that will expire in 08. Without this exemption, these 14 SE Asian nations will be creamed by cheap Chinese labor.

I also think Americans as a whole want these labor protections or am I wrong?

[Kaan]

so are the chinese knockoffs going to go up in price?

[.RJ]

Nobody's policing anything...

"We" imposed tariffs because we dont like how they run their businesses - We're not sending US police to asia and arresting them, but its the same thing because there's now an incentive for them to follow our labor practices. Who's going to enforce this and how much will it cost?

I dont disagree that its a good thing on both sides - cheap goods and fair labor - but the tariffs shouldnt have been in place at all. I think tariffs for the most part are stupid - as with most gov't economic control.

[Ginger]

Psst, no Kaan, down in price

I think you're right, Andy. Even the idiot Americans who think Keynes was a prophet like human rights issues.... they're a fuzzy feel good issue. They're not necessarily the most efficient way to do things, but I see this as a lot more up than down.

[Ginger]

The question you should be asking, RJ, isn't "why would we be dropping tariffs for these worker's rights issues?" - it should, instead, be "why are these tariffs in place at all?"

but the tariffs shouldnt have been in place at all. I think tariffs for the most part are stupid - as with most gov't economic control.

yay reading!

[.RJ]

Pics > Reading

[Andy]

Who's going to enforce this and how much will it cost?

NGO's already provide oversight, Cambodia already has labor laws in place. There's no US Gov't involvement in the enforcement aspect. All they ask is that we drop the tariff.

[Ginger]

To take a quote from me, from Derek's signature:

totally agreed.

[Ginger]

Heck, even if there is no oversight and the trade restrictions are dropped, there will have been a net good accomplished.

Win win

[.RJ]

All they ask is that we drop the tariff.

Well fuck those guys that put the tariffs in place.

[insert asian joke]

[Evan]

do they have import restrictions or tarriffs?

do they have environmental standards and laws?


Im not protectionist at all when it comes to trade, but there could be more to these tarriffs than just labor.

[Kaan]

14 Southeast asian countries pledge to adhere to strict labor laws that include 3 month maternity leave, 8 hour work day, right to unionize, safe work environment and no child labor in exchange for no tariff on their garments which approximates to 17% of their costs.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext...l=s110-652
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tradean...wm1578.cfm

i'm going to say that its going to cost more money for the products. all the stuff listed as a "plus" for workers will cost the companies some money... i'm sure they will claim the 17% tariff they are making back wont make up for the expence... and will charge more.

edit: if we arent there to enforce it... i would claim whatever i'm supposed to be doing... but if some woman asked for 3 months of pay and she doesnt work! oh hell no you are fired! if you only work 8 hours in a day... you better double your production! and my work shops are safe... i have TWO first aid kits!

[Andy]

do they have import restrictions or tarriffs?

do they have environmental standards and laws?

Im not protectionist at all when it comes to trade, but there could be more to these tarriffs than just labor.

These are small countries e.g. Cambodia, Laos, Maldives, Sri Lanka so if they did have tariffs, the strong majority of their people wouldn't be able to afford any american commercial goods. Any american company that wanted to sell their products in these respective country could just open up a factory there and sell their goods without worry about tariffs.

I can't imagine that they great environmental standards if any but I don't have any info on that end.

[Ginger]

They wouldn't be fighting for us to drop the tariffs if their prices would go up. They'd lose because we'd buy less of their products. Their prices will definitely go down, and they're going to be forced to be even more competitive with the flood of Chinese goods that will hit the market. Trust me, prices = lower.

[Kaan]

I can't imagine that they great environmental standards if any but I don't have any info on that end.

Just email Al Gore.

[Andy]

14 Southeast asian countries pledge to adhere to strict labor laws that include 3 month maternity leave, 8 hour work day, right to unionize, safe work environment and no child labor in exchange for no tariff on their garments which approximates to 17% of their costs.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext...l=s110-652
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tradean...wm1578.cfm

i'm going to say that its going to cost more money for the products. all the stuff listed as a "plus" for workers will cost the companies some money... i'm sure they will claim the 17% tariff they are making back wont make up for the expence... and will charge more.

edit: if we arent there to enforce it... i would claim whatever i'm supposed to be doing... but if some woman asked for 3 months of pay and she doesnt work! oh hell no you are fired! if you only work 8 hours in a day... you better double your production! and my work shops are safe... i have TWO first aid kits!

Those protections are already in place. They just want to keep them in place. Without the tariff exemption, they will have to cut cost to stay competitive. These countries aren't getting fat off this exemption. The average cambodian worker makes 45 bucks a month with OT, they can make up to 70 bucks.

Kaan - Yes you have to trust that these nations are providing safe working conditions and NGO's are providing oversight at no cost to the taxpayer.

[Andy]

They wouldn't be fighting for us to drop the tariffs if their prices would go up. They'd lose because we'd buy less of their products. Their prices will definitely go down, and they're going to be forced to be even more competitive with the flood of Chinese goods that will hit the market. Trust me, prices = lower.

+1