Pink Freud wrote:It wouldn't matter, Val. The factories in China that make Wal-Mart merchandise aren't owned by Wal-Mart, they're owned by someone in China who just sells the merchandise to Wal-Mart cheaply. They set that up when the first accusations of "Wal-Mart-owned chinese sweatshops" started flying around. Same with anyone else who buys products made in China. Iphones aren't made by Apple, either. They're designed by Apple, but made by Foxconn for Apple, so no American business rules could possibly apply to them. Outsourced production, tech support, what-have-you, are all handled by companies owned within that country that are just selling their products/services to the American companies, so that when scandals pop up about Foxconn suicides due to stress and harsh working conditions, or chinese toy companies using lead-based paint, it's so sad and someone should do something over there but it's not anyone in America's fault because the businesses are not owned by Americans.
I'll add to that the simple fact that, as sad as it is, much of the world's economy, especially related to the production of goods, relies HEAVILY on the fact that a lot of various goods are produced in China/India, AND produced cheaply. Sure, it does not seem very fair that people work in China for completely unfair wages, and I *would* like this to change, but it can't just be magicked away with adding a simple rule. If China suddenly disappeared from the map (along with its huge workforce that produces things at near-zero cost), developed countries (such as the US or most European countries) would be hit very hard. And the POOR people in those countries would be hit in the most immediate, lasting, and harsh manner.
The flipside of terrible working conditions and wages in some countries *is*, currently, that people who are relatively better off (by virtue of living in a Western country) have a much easier life. A person from the US, *especially* a person who earns very little by American standards, buys cheap goods because they are produced for a cost that just couldn't be achieved in the US. This is the direct result of how global economy works, and even if it *was* possible to remove one part of this equation (and it isn't), it'd just make pretty much every economy collapse in a chain reaction. And when I say "cheap goods" I mean things like "being able to afford decent food and reliable clothes on a fairly regular basis", not "being able to buy a smartphone".
Note - this does NOT mean that there is no merit in some anti-globalist ideas or initiatives for change. But the fact that the current system is wrong doesn't change the fact that it *is* needed right now. It is a good idea to change it, but it's not possible to change a notable aspect of that just by forcing it. And nearly-no-cost production of goods in China/India, which pretty much results from near-zero wages, is one of those things that just keep the economy going right now.
It's not directly relevant to the issue, but a good example of when economy broke when people attempted to fix it by drastic changes is the economy/industry of just about *any* Communist country. Some of them collapsed even though they had a lot of initial momentum (like the Soviet Union). Some of them had to switch to a more market-driven economy to survive (like, well, China). World economy is a fragile and complex system, and the ONLY way to make sure everyone earns a fair amount of money is to lean away from capitalism as far as possible. As problematic as capitalism is, an economic system driven primarily (though not exclusively) by it *does* seem to be the most stable and efficient way to go, even if it's sometimes really unfair. And the necessary evil of capitalism *is* looking for a way to get results without spending much, and that (in the current shape of the world) includes outsourcing jobs to places where people get paid nothing or next to nothing.
And besides - the economic situation of the individual is *not* merely a product of how much they earn. Other things, like costs of living factor in. I am relatively comfortable financially, and probably a *lot* better off than some of the forum-ers that live in the US. I earn what is slightly above the average pay in Poland. In most of the US, the monetary amount of what I actually get would be below minimum wage. But since the prices of just about anything are anywhere from 2 to 6 times lower than in the US, I have relatively more spending power than if I lived in the US and earned, like, 50% more.
So, in the hypothetical situation where people in China started earning US minimum wage, they would actually be paid a LOT of money. So, paying people outside of the US the same amount of money as people in the US would not, arguably, be all that fair (compare a factory worker that produces for Wal-Mart with a factory worker that produces for the local Chinese market - in your scenario, it'd make for two people who do the exact same job, one of whom would earn, I dunno, five-ten times more than the other? Maybe more?), as they'd get more for their wages than a person in the US does. That's part of the reason people from Poland work in the UK or the USA (and why people get upset about "foreigners stealing their jobs"), or why people from say, Ukraine or Belarus treat Poland (and the money they can make there) as a land of opportunity.
In short -
1) the global economy is a big, tangled mess and you can't poke TOO much at it without everything collapsing;
2) the issue is more complex than how much a person gets paid. There are a lot of other factors, primarily costs/standards of living.
