Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Is this an Anti-Globalization Movement?

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 29, 2011, 7:42 p.m. EST by AlternativeSynergy (224)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There are a lot of complaints on this forum about outsourcing of jobs to other countries. If tax penalties are imposed on American companies for building factories and using workers outside of our borders, or tariffs are imposed on imported goods, this could adversely affect the foreign workers that are employed by our companies. Are the 99%ers OK with that, or do they want to focus on improving wages and working conditions in all countries and not penalize companies that outsource labor.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

I think this movement is one aspect of a worldwide, and well-justified reaction, to neoliberal free-trade globalization, yes. Intelligent tariffs that counter disparities in labor and environmental regulations, for example, can benefit both us and the overall quality of life for laborers in places like China. We could even go so far as to offer exemptions or discounts on a case-by-case basis for factories overseas that live up to our minimal level of standards, etc.

[-] 1 points by Banjarama (242) from Little Elm, TX 12 years ago


[-] 3 points by bronxj (150) 12 years ago

"Giant Sucking Sound" was the phrase used by independent candidate Ross Perot during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign to refer to the sound of U.S. jobs heading south for Mexico should NAFTA go into effect. Perot ultimately lost the election to Bill Clinton who supported NAFTA which went into effect in 1994.

[-] 2 points by Bellaciao29 (99) 12 years ago

Of course it is a Movement against globalization, because this is a trick of the capitalists to mantain their right to enslave people. The antiglobalization Movement is going up all over the world and in a few years will become a majority. In France is about the 20% and in Norvegia has reached the 30%. This is the future of humanity. The capitalism is a dying dinosaur which is crying its desperation.

[-] 2 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 12 years ago

I don't want a global movement. Fix it here first. I want American jobs back in America.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 12 years ago

No this is a global movement. If by Globalization you mean corporate feudalism,. then Yes it is against that,.

[-] 2 points by gabrieledwards (19) 12 years ago

Well, I don't live in China and neither does my child so I'd like to have a job here.

I'd rather be a poor man in a rich country than a rich man in a poor country.

[-] 2 points by gestopomilly (497) 12 years ago

Penalize companies that outsource. This economy cannot support the world unless we agree to live in tin shacks or mud huts. Is that what you want for your grandchildren?

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Protectionism IS humanitarian, that's what this is all about.

And we can say more, deprive the American people of their economic logic and "economy" ceases to exist, regardless of GDP.

[-] 1 points by globalist (1) 12 years ago

Globalization requires ever increasing ship traffic. Conflict continues festering in the United States over whether to follow the International Maritime Organization policies or create strong adequate national legislation that would protect American waters from virus and bacteria being dumped in our waters as foreign ships deliver their manufactured products. Cholera thrives in brown marine algae and brown marine algae can thrive in the deep sea where mid ocean flush's take place. Sadly the only way to be sure and stop ballast systems from continuing to spread pathogens is mandatory installation of sterilization equipment on ships. Unfortunately International shipping is needed for continued economic globalization to support the worlds economies. The problem is no where close to being resolved because, internationally, countries including the US follow the rules and guidelines of the International Maritime Organization, and the IMO is an international organization made up of diverse governments and international economic interests. They are not even close to adequately addressing the problem because of the monetary inconvenience. In other words they would rather let people continue to die than spend the money. Increased growth of the worlds economies will require increased ship traffic and the problems of waterborne disease will continue to be spread by ballast system. It is known that migratory birds spread influenza virus from one body of water to another. Ballast systems should not be allowed to help spread fecal material containing virus, as this may prove helpful in spreading the next world pandemic if anyone ever bothers to check. Currently there has been an enormous PR push by the shipping industry consisting of fear mongering about an alleged loss of jobs. The reality about raising the cost of foreign imports with strong national ballast water regulations helping to make America more cost competitive manufacturers can be understood by the following excerpt from a report prepared for congress in 2009. “Although estimates of the costs of ballast treatment may be imprecise and vary from vessel to vessel, there is some general agreement on average costs.14 For example, it may cost an estimated $400,000 per vessel for modification of container/bulk vessels to use onshore ballast water treatment facilities at California ports. More generally, the cost of retrofitting vessels to treat ballast water has been estimated at between $200,000 and $310,000 per vessel for mechanical treatment and around $300,000 for chemical treatment.15 Most of this expense will be borne by foreign shipping companies, as the U.S. flag fleet is a small percentage of the global fleet,16 and likely passed along to consumers of products imported on these ships.”