HS 103 Lecture 3- Work and trade.

Title: Let's get cheap

The idea of work is related to not only one’s ability to perform the work required but it is also about the challenges involved to keep the job. This might not involve the workers ability in the first place, as companies and corporations have become so empowered now, they survive on a self consuming drive for higher profits. The lack of responsibility a company has towards a country or a society enables it to be extremely mobile. The lack of obligations allows the company to freely choose the cheapest and most value for money region that can support its industries. For the average worker, this process is beyond their control. This process implies that, even if the worker or group of workers are highly productive and efficient, it does no mean that they will get to keep their jobs, they would be passed over when the company deems that a cheaper alternative is available. As in the case of Maytag (Maytag goes to Mexico) the company insisted on moving its plant to Mexico even though the workers wanted to negotiate and promise the company higher efficiency. It seems clear that the focus on companies now is to utilize cheaper labour to drive down production costs. Hence demanding for better pay seems to be working against the workers as they will eventually be passed over for a cheaper group of workers somewhere in the world once their pay requirements cross a certain threshold. The alternative would be the loss of jobs. The bottomline seems to be ruthless yet exceedingly simple, work for as little pay as you can get and you might secure the longevity of your job for just a little bit longer.

The movement of companies to relocate away from the traditional areas in which they were founded on, have gone in line with the reinvention of corporate companies and industries to adapt to the changing world markers, this has lead to the new international division of labour which involves the inclusion of more places geographically in the world to be involved in the production of a single product. This to an extent is good for the world as more people are able to have jobs across the world, this would also theoretically mean that people will become more affluent as the trickle down effects from the profits of the companies goes back to the local economy. However this has largely not been the case as emerging markets hang on to this false reality and invite foreign companies into their country, they do provide jobs for the people, however at the end of the day the quality of these jobs is not improving in line with the movement of societies and the world as a whole. When child labour was commonplace in America in the early twentieth century it is now a phenomenon in India and south Asia. The same problems are still there, it is just in a different place at a different time. Perhaps when India strengthens and enforces harsher labour laws companies will not look at ending the problem but rather extending it to another region who have yet to adapt to the problem. Would companies who are increasing in profits and wealth eventually find a morally sound solution when they run out of regions to utilize child labour for example? Would we then finally see a shift in capitalism to include the repercussions towards the labour force, the force that generates profits in the first place? Is that the final solution to the problems of global poverty and disproportionate distribution of wealth?

Unfortunately companies are creative enough to remain one step ahead of the game, they will likely be able to find a way somehow to reinvent themselves to ensure their profits remain. I believe that governments should be the ones taking ownership and putting the needs of the people first rather than the needs of the country, maybe with this perspective the capitalist centered companies themselves will be forced to rethink their methods and strategies and adapt to the global consensus, instead of it being the other way round.