Manufacturing Jobs, Gone Forever

as usual, ace restates the ideological justification for neo-liberal exploitation...what allowed for the fragmentation of capitalist production was a political shift into milty-freidmany obsession with "maximizing shareholder value" to the exclusion of all other considerations. this was enabled at a major media level by the transition in the nightly astrological indices that the talking heads on national network news would point at in order to "ground" in some "data" their prognostications about the well-being of the national body politico-economicus. these converge on a shift in focus onto the movements of capital as if these were the exclusive indicators one had to use in order to generate statements about capitalism. of a piece with this was the breakdown in the political consensus that had underpinned what the regulation school calls the "virtuous circle of fordism"--heavily unionized workers, high wages, expanding consumer credit which fueled expanding consumption via home ownership etc....all anathema to the paleo-conservative herbert hoover set which opposed on "moral" grounds those uppity working people not staying in their place from the moment their incoherent policies lost them power in the 1930s....but i digress.

thing is that the ideological offensive that conflated the movements of capital with the well-being of capitalism as a social form in any given place worked pretty well. hell, most people were chumped by it for varying lengths of time. that just goes to show how heroically free people are in the face of changing dominant significations---they adapt and follow and think what and how they're told mostly. but the fact that not everyone is fooled makes the paleo-right crazy and if they had their way they'd eliminate that shit and the united states could finish its descent into the toilet of history with conservatives at the helm, eyes shut and ears blocked singing la la la la i can't hear you.

so while people were convinced that the movements of capital were an indication of the well-being of capitalism as a social form some very basic transformations happened. one of them followed from the internationalization of the stock trade in about 1970. that meant ownership was soon spread to no particular national space and so the well-being of capitalism in any particular social space was no longer a political concern for the social class defined by the ownership at a remove of the instruments of production. then there was the paleo-conservative hatred of unions and all they stand for. upptiness. decent wages. benefits. job security. wage slaves deserve none of that, apparently. so first there was a de facto war on the unions and then there was a gradual, silent crumbling of the political norms that linked wage levels to the well-being of any particular complex geographical space. what replaced it was a globally aggregate, an asbtract space of capital and material flows. labor got shifted to a variable cost. computer systems linked by the internet made most geographies interchangeable. and voila, presto macho a brave new "globalized" world was constitued in which the worst excesses of capitalist exploitation as usual went to be visited upon people far away using the intermediaries of "free trade zones" and this horseshit discourse of "moving on up" from some imaginary pre-capitalist barbarism, a fiction the function of which was to make sweatshop labor in temporary locations seems a step up from something. of course no unions allowed. and no brakes on using child labor. and no bottom to wage levels. and certainly no benefits. they're wage slaves after all. fuck em.

of course this was of a piece with a redefining of what constitutes national boundaries around the giant network of free trade zones, so in the case of certain commodity production chains you'd be hard pressed to determine what was and was not "made in the united states" in the sense of being made in free trade zones all over the place that are part of the "united states" except way cheaper in terms of labor (maxmizing shareholder value in the way capitalism has done since marx described its workings in capital)....

all this insanity is starting to come undone, leaving paleo-conservatives like ace (who in this is simply a reflection of the larger problem facing the right as its ideology dissolves and the realities concealed by it surface) high and dry.

there are options...but what stands in the way is the remaining socio-political cadres who see the world in the degenerate terms set by neo-liberalism. want an index of that paralysis? look at the spectacle of the national elections in the united states. the dominant order cannot move beyond that ideology. it will have to be forced into it from outside. but i digress.

 

First, I thought the topic was Apple. I know there are documented instances in the garment industry of such exploitation. If Apple products are manufactured under the conditions specified, I would not buy Apple products or be an Apple shareholder.

Second, forced labor is a form of slavery. Who is responsible for these conditions? Why would a parent allow their child to be subjected to this type of slavery? I would not. If I were a government official in one of these countries, I would not allow these conditions. If as a citizen of one of these countries I knew this type of slavery was systematically occurring I would work to end it. As an American when I know of such conditions I refuse to buy products manufactured in those conditions. If everyone had the same reaction, this would stop.

Third, are you the same person who made the argument that as a Canadian you had no jurisdictional concern for wealth disparity between Canada and Zimbabwe? Wealth disparity is wealth disparity and this is an example of that. I argue that when people can freely participate in the market the wealth disparity gets smaller. Slavery or forced labor is not free market participation. Labor not being free to organize and collectively bargain is not free market participation. The problems with restricted freedoms, point to government and government policy.

 

an aside: it is curious the difficulties one encounters in finding data on the geography of computer production. maybe that follows from the extent to which computing has become a basic tool of geography production itself (gps, new forms of mapping, etc) and has in the process become as invisible as the hand that holds the camera that takes the picture.

 

Who is responsible for the exploitation being described? It has virtually nothing to do with free market participation which I advocate. What is being described is being accomplished through force. Governments have the power of force, unless it is abdicated.

"most people", can you be specific. Were you "chumpted", I wasn't?

Yes, capital flows when it is free to do so. This flow similar to the free flow of water is the most efficient means for equilibrium. If you support even wealth distribution you must support the free flow of capital.

Deserve is not a proper word in a free market type system. Wages are earned. Job security is earned. Wages are negotiated, etc. You can not be a passive participate in a free market type system and expect to be taken care of. Your point of view is not at all clear to me. Do you expect others to protect "you"? Clarify this, please.
--- merged: Jan 11, 2012 5:26 PM ---

The computer industry requires a higher level of skill and expertise as well as a higher level of environmental conditions in manufacturing compared to the garment industry.
--- merged: Jan 11, 2012 5:28 PM ---

I will not support forced labor or slavery under any circumstance.

 

ok so ace, first off if you want to discuss the transition from fordism to neo-liberal "globalization" you're going to have to refer to actually existing history. i have no interest in reading your metaphysical bromides yet again.

secondly, you know nothing about the organization of production in the computer industry if you are prepared to argue that nonsense. it is a mass-production based system rooted in what are now the usual supply pool systems located in "free trade" zones and elsewhere where-ever wage levels are cheapest. the only thing that's factually correct in your last statement is that the levels of technology and/or skill (whether it rest with individual workers or machines is entirely a function of the organization of production in a particular space, which is an empirical matter not approachable via your metaphysics) is different for computers than it is for textiles.

in fact that is the only factually correct statement in the entirety of your last post.
--- merged: Jan 11, 2012 6:14 PM ---
some information:

apple's 2010 supplier responsibility report:

http://images.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/pdf/L418102A_SR_2010Report_FF.pdf

child labor problems & the limits of apple's csr auditing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8324867/Apples-child-labour-issues-worsen.html

why earthquakes are not entirely a bad thing, capitalist version:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia...an-tech-companies-pick-up-slack-left-by-Japan (w/plus indications of the concentration in memory and lcd screen production in the hands of japanese firms, which have heavy investments in production facilities in china. i am not sure if contemporary japanese tncs work off a different model than do the americans...haven't time to research this at the moment, though: does anyone know off hand?)

 

If, as an employer of labor, I pay person "A" $20/hr, and I pay "you" $10/hr. for the same work/quality/etc., how long does that condition last? As soon as you find out, you would confront me with the issue and ask for a raise, wouldn't you? However, if I can restrict your freedoms, freedom to obtain information, I can maintain the condition for as long as I want. It is freedom in the market that will equalize wages. If I pay Americans $20/hr. and I pay people in China $1/hr., how long does that condition last? Why would that condition last longer even if I do not control the freedom to obtain information? Answer - the Chinese government controls the free flow of information! And worse in instances where the Chinese people become aware of the income disparity, the Chinese government still will not allow labor to freely unionize and collectively bargain - government retains control. People/companies who employ people generally do not have the military/police power to control populations, governments do. Freedom is an equalizer.

Additionally, if one employer who employs people in a competitive market pays $10/hr. when the true value of the labor is $20 can not retain employees. In a free market an employee will not work for $10, when they can work for $20 at another firm. However, if an employer can restrict freedom, movement from one employer to another is restricted and labor can be exploited. Historically, we have seen how this is done, with company housing, company stores, etc. In modern time what do we see restricting this movement??? Oh, things like healthcare insurance that is not transferable across state lines in the US. A 50 year-old, can be virtually locked in with an employer because of this. So, I support free market insurance changes or true single payer, eliminate the restriction - wages will go up because people will have more freedom of choice. it is government policy at the root of this restriction on freedom. Businesses simply play by the rules of the game. This is one example of why we have seen wage stagnation.
--- merged: Jan 11, 2012 6:30 PM ---

Then don't.

I made a general statement which is true. If you have expertise and want to discuss the issue further perhaps we could do that, there is no reason for personal attacks.

 

look above, ace. i started to post information. i'll do more. i don't expect you to actually read any of it, of course. metaphysics is merely contaminated with data about the world. ask any theologian.

there's been a resumption of the suicide protests over conditions at foxconn production facilities in china:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...st-at-Apple-manufacturer-Foxconn-factory.html

despite the efforts of foxconn to force workers to sign a "legally binding document" prohibiting them from killing themselves.

the wikipedia page for foxconn gives background on their fabulous record with respect to working conditions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Controversies

clearly all that matters here is maximizing shareholder value. i don't know why im bringing this stuff up. o wait, from forbes of all places,
The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value


http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevede...reholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/

 

In circumstance where labor is attempting to organize and collectively bargain who/what is mostly responsible for tipping the "scale" in one direction or another? Assuming labor wants to "maximize labor value" and capitalist want to "maximize shareholder value" what prevents fair negotiations and agreements?

I know you can not answer these question and stay consistent with your ideology, but realize that I and many others know why. For the rest, government and government policy often tips the scales against labor and labor's ability to negotiate fair wages. The next reasonable question is why does government do this? I recently watched a documentary on the history of the people in the Appalachian coal mining area, and the US Federal government used the force of the military against workers. The government was willing to sacrifice some people for the benefit of others. The government did not take a neutral stance, but isn't that what we should expect?

Apple does business in China. Apple has their standards but they still have to comply with the laws established by the Chinese government. Apple pays a price for the ability to do business in China or they would no be allowed to continue, if Chinese workers have an issue they need first look at their own government not Apple!

 

ace, that's just lunacy. in the united states, the main driver undercutting the position of organized labor was neo-liberal ideology/globalization. this is an empirical state of affairs. it did not originate with the state. the only reality that corresponds to is your ideological preference for markets=>good, the state=>bad and the parlor game that you like to indulge in chunking and moving about reality so that it squares with that simple-minded grid.

in fact, collective bargaining was the dominant mechanism for maintaining the relatively high-wage economy that was particular to fordism--the last socially functional period of capitalist organization in the united states---and the ideological offensive called neo-liberalism was directed against exactly that mechanism and the unions that participated in it because, the argument went, such arrangements did not maximize shareholder value as the milty-freidmany set would have you think was the only function of business. unions were never outlawed in the united states, but the private sector has actively and explicitly worked to undermine their position relative to captial--abetted symbolically by heroes of Industry like reagan. but it was never the same as the uk under thatcher. history, ace. come on.

on the other hand, it is simply the case that china does not allow for unionization, and one of the main reasons why heroic capitalism has preferred to use suppliers located there. race to the bottom in terms of wages. which i assume you point to because it appears to reinforce your position. but it seems to me the juxtaposition of the two points shows, again, that your metaphysics are arbitrary.

 

Industry will use child labor. "Industry" does not care. "Industry" will respond to customers, if customers care "industry" will respond accordingly. "Industry" does not have the power of military/police, "industry" does not make law. "Industry" will respond to government, if government establishes "fair" rules the market will reflect "fairness".

A single person has little or no power against large corporations. To level the playing field labor has to organize and collectively bargain. In some circumstances labor can have leverage over "industry". It is possible for "industry" to be exploited - it is obvious that the condition can only last until the "industry" is dead. Labor needs healthy "industry" and "industry" needs healthy labor - for "maximization" of any type to occur.
--- merged: Jan 11, 2012 7:19 PM ---

Are you joking? It is clear that "industry" wants the best deal. "Industry" will do what it can get away with. It is clear "labor" wants the best deal. "Labor" will do what they can get away with, including using violence as has been evidenced from both sides in history. In these stalemates the resolutions always go in the favor of government's response. I have studied many instances of labor disputes in US history, the pattern is clear.

Can you give one example of a serious labor dispute in this country that did not follow the above pattern?

 

This exchange with Roach post 26, is important. I can not understand the application of the concept of "deserve" in a free market type system? What does it mean? How does it apply in practical terms?

I believe this is at the root of us not understanding each other.

 

and no, ace, the state has not always determined the outcomes of labor disputes. you might look at the wars that accompanied efforts to unionize ford. look up river rouge. unless by that you mean something entirely general like: because there is a mechanism that makes unionization of a firm legal, the state determines the outcome. but that's tautological. it says nothing. there were a host of paths by which different firms/sectors were unionized, just as there's been several pathways that firms have used since the 70s to undercut union representation by outsourcing/globalization. nature has had nothing to do with it. abstract forces have had nothing to do with it. the ideology of maximizing shareholder value, on the other hand, did play a role in enabling it. this must be why the latest round of hand-waving has changed a bit---now that people are waking up and figuring out that something strange has been going on and that the trickle-down nonsense is no more than that, the right is adjusting its brand by adjusting its language. now suddenly unions are not the enemy, but part of the second nature that people like ace hallucinate. so just another way for the right to run away from its own record of union-busting/outsourcing etc..---policies which really have fucked over working people in the united states. and by the right, in this case, i include the clinton administration, which was quite possibly the most successful in driving this process.

 

You miss a big point. Government can be the reason for the exploitation.

Also, we talk about "industry" in broad general terms. But "industry" can be you as an individual. If you pay a 10 year old to wash your car and you pay him $5, but when you go to a car-wash you pay $10, what is the difference in what we are discussing? Why did you pay the boy half? Why didn't you comply with child labor laws? Etc. Etc.

 

I did not state that government (or the state) has always determined the outcomes of labor disputes. Please read what I write if you are going to comment on it.