Keep Burberry British !

January 28, 2007 3:34 AM

Keep Burberry British.The 150 years old very british brand is now under a new management that decided to ...*surprise* move production to China closing Treorchy plant, firing 310 workers , despite a 25% increase in profits ! Celebrities from Prince Charles to Tom Jones are supporting the protest.
posted by elpapacito (72 comments total)

We Americans have been facing this same struggle for some time now. Welcome to the Walmartization of production.

=(
posted by GavinR at 3:39 AM on January 28, 2007

Heh. Is this Burberry protecting their brand after bing adopted by the primitive underclasses?
posted by vbfg at 3:45 AM on January 28, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

I guess globalization is alright as long as it's the other folks getting screwed, eh?
posted by signal at 3:59 AM on January 28, 2007

Are any British car brands owned by Britons any more?
posted by toma at 4:00 AM on January 28, 2007

Also, you forgot to mention the Chav factor in all of this.
posted by GavinR at 4:07 AM on January 28, 2007

As others have said, no *surprise* here. Adaptation is the key.
Prince Charles - celebrity!!
posted by tellurian at 4:10 AM on January 28, 2007

Here's hoping we'll outsource our chavs to China or India.
posted by slimepuppy at 4:10 AM on January 28, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Are any British car brands owned by Britons any more?

Matchbox?
posted by vbfg at 4:18 AM on January 28, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Patriotic neds wear Aquascutum, anyhow.
posted by the cuban at 4:32 AM on January 28, 2007

Sorry vbfg, but all my son's Matchbox cars are stamped with "Made In China" on thier undersides.
posted by maryh at 4:34 AM on January 28, 2007

It was at least funny in an ironic way when Wedgwood closed factories and moved to China. This isn't very funny at all.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 4:45 AM on January 28, 2007

Ricardo's Difficult Idea: Why non-economists don't, can't or won't understand comparative advantage.
posted by matthewr at 4:57 AM on January 28, 2007

So, has any economics wonk done a projection on how long it will take before all the jobs transferred to China become too much of a drain on the bottom line and start being outsourced to somewhere even cheaper? Africa Inc., for instance?
posted by Thorzdad at 5:00 AM on January 28, 2007

Sorry vbfg, but all my son's Matchbox cars are stamped with "Made In China" on thier undersides.

That really is the final straw. :)
posted by vbfg at 5:15 AM on January 28, 2007

Motors? I think only Morgan, the niche maker of retro machines, and the Bloor-revived Triumph (motorcycles) remain in British ownership. Everyone else has been assimilated, died by their own hand, or was killed off.
posted by maxwelton at 5:19 AM on January 28, 2007

Actually, this ^[PDF] article by Mankiw about outsourcing is more interesting than the article in my previous comment.
posted by matthewr at 5:20 AM on January 28, 2007

PC is arriving at the After Skool Klub… he's well under, wearing a swashbuckling Nova mini kilt, but maybe not aware of his dishevelment. Tom reaches over to close his legs as he gets out of the Rolls, but it's too late, the paparazzi have a shot.
posted by tellurian at 5:20 AM on January 28, 2007

Australian boot-makers Blundstone recently announced plans to outsource boot manufacture.
posted by Ritchie at 5:21 AM on January 28, 2007

Interesting aside about China; most of that development is taking place along the coast with easy access to transportation & capital. The deep inland regions remain as poor as they always have been. I'm completing an Executive MBA with an Outsourcing concentration, and one of my professors has done a great deal of work in China. He's got this theory that the country might balkanize in as little as ten years time, there is that much tension and resentment between the sides. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

India seems to be rapidly pricing itself out of the game in many respects; when I took over operations at one company I was working for we were seeing price inflation of 20% pa for key resources. Driving this was rampant competition in India for the relatively few resources who were experienced and thus capable of working with Westerners. By some reports, wage inflation in certain sectors of the labour force is running at 30-40% pa. Entry level staff are paid as low as ever, but ramp up times are so so significant that we - like many other firms - typically mandated a specific level of on the job experience before we'd accept them. Let some other firm train them, we were more interested in moving things forward. A couple of other things impacting India at the moment - they are trying to move up the value chain, not just taking commodity IT skills but more towards complete solutions. Fine, but typically these aren't the type of jobs that are easily transferable; skills are relatively rare or leverage deep industry expertise, perhaps the activities are not very well defined and in fact can't be, or there might be lots of client interaction that isn't easily accomplished via the telephone or Internet. Playing in this space we see the cost of on-shore Indian resources closely approximate those of Westerners - perhaps 10%-20% cheaper - and previously offering sharp cost savings were the Indian companies primary competitive advantage. So this is hurting the Indian companies desire to move into that space. Another factor is the reverse diaspora; many Indians just don't like working in the US or Europe, so many will do three or five years away from home before returning, never to leave (for prolonged periods) again. This causes the Indian companies pain as that talent pool isn't infinite, and the domestic economy is booming, offering many alternatives to working so far away from home.

In terms of alternative locations, we're already seeing Vietnam and some of the Eastern European countires rising as outsourcing destinations. So both Asia and Europe are spoken for, that only leaves Africa.

Ah Africa. I try to spend as much time there as possible, never miss a chance to do some biz in Africa (at some firms I've worked for I was the only person who would travel there) and take as many holidays as I can there. It's a fascinating place. Yeh, Africa, of course, could become a very large player if they can get their act together. I've spent a lot of time working in Banks across the continent, from Cairo down to JoTown, but most of my time doing biz in Africa has been spent in Nigeria. I consider many of those folks are as good skills wise as anybody in London or New York. As well educated and highly competent as many Nigerians are, it's the overall system - both infrastructure as well as acceptable business practices - that let's them down. They have a lot of people and human resource cost structure is very low, but the ancillary costs of doing business down there are very, very high and would rapidly erode any advantage relatively cheaper wages would gain the country.

It was very difficult doing business in Nigeria on a project by project basis, flying down and spending two or three weeks on the ground in Lagos or Abuja or (before it got really bad!) The Delta region. I can't imagine having to put up with all that crap 24x7x365. And it's just not the incessant power cuts, poor roads (I've seen holes in the roads down there that an adult would have difficulty climbing out of!) and poor climate. Almost everybody down there tries to cut some kinda side deal, it makes doing biz difficult trying to convince them that you don't swing that way. Especially so as I was working for an American firm at the time, and American companies frown heavily on that stuff, being squeaky clean and all.

So I do believe that Africa is the future destination of choice, but sadly think we're talking a good ten to twenty years. Too bad really, as outsourcing to Africa would be the ultimate win/win in my view.
posted by Mutant at 5:59 AM on January 28, 2007 [11 favorites has favorites]

matthewr:

According to Ricardo, each nation should specialize in those activities in which it excels, so that it can have the greatest advantage relative to other countries. Thus, a nation should narrow its focus of activity, abandoning certain industries and developing those in which it has the largest comparative advantage.As a result, international trade would grow as nations export their surpluses and import the products that they no longer manufacture, efficiency and productivity would increase in line with economies of scale and prosperity would be enhanced.

Ah the lovely economies of scale and specialization, they are so tried and tested and quite easy to prove (even if they reach diminishing returns/increased marginal cost sooner or later)

But let' see comparative advantage. It is an excellent argument in favor of trading production surpluses between two countries/individuals, trade certainly can be beneficial.

Yet I am quite suspicious of extreme simplification (God created everthing, end of story) and extreme complication (we must know where each atom of a soldering joint is going to be before producing) and a brief glance at the assumption on which the Northern-Southern example works, reveals these assumption are quite strong simplifications.

In sum, while the concept of comparative advantage may seem utterly simple to economists, in order to achieve that simplicity one must invoke a number of principles and useful simplifying assumptions that seem natural and reasonable only to someone familiar with economic analysis in general. ("What do you mean, objects fall at the same rate regardless of how heavy they are -- if I drop a cannonball and a feather ... you're assuming away air resistance? Why would you do that?") Those principles and simplifying assumptions are indeed reasonable, but they are not obvious.

Nice analogy, but lab conditions and simplifications are used when one 1. isn't interested/ doesn't care about what is left out 2. doesn't understand the interaction and wish to focus only on one part of the model.

In practice, most of the trading is still done in condition in which the cannonball and the feather wouldn't fall at the same rate.

We should also consider that traders are interested and focuses in trade because they want to take advantage of price/efficiency differentials , but are not at all concerned with effects of trade...on long term they will just go to the other country.
posted by elpapacito at 6:29 AM on January 28, 2007

Articles from economists are convincing till one notes that so much else, they take political positions of some sort.

What a retired guy working in a Best Buy store told me:
sure. Globalization lowers prices for those who own the businesses (stocks etc) that is outsourced but the savings are not passed on to the consumer. Sure: we lose jobs. Sure: incomes will go up in those places where the jobs get outsourced to. And Yes: the time will come when many Americans will not be able to afford the consumer goods they could at one time buy with ease becasue of lost jobs and jobs with lower salaries.

However: incomes will rise in many other countries where work is now being done and that is a much much bigger market for the people who sell those goods.
What then is important to remember: the corporations outsourcing are now international, and, like some companies doing business with the Nazis early on, owe no obligation to their land of birth but rather to the corporate interests that are scattered worldwide.
In sum: the companies with many branches and worldwide itnerests are now trans-national and not American or British or French. They owe obligations mostly to stock holders and have become entities unto themselves.

As i ncomes go down in some countries, in other countries, incomes go up...evolution, Ricardo? Sure. How easy to suggest adaptation if you are in a postion to adapt rather than in a postion where you have been sacxrificed by those you allowed to be in charge because they think it is in their interests to better their position.
posted by Postroad at 6:42 AM on January 28, 2007

Ricardo's Difficult Idea: Why non-economists don't, can't or won't understand comparative advantage.
posted by matthewr at 4:57 AM PST on January 28 [+]
[!]

is this because economists have refused to deal with social and cultural issues that people care about? people understand the concept of "cheap labor" better than you think.

comparative advantage for elites in China and England; a pink slip, and a stranger world for the rest of us.

The basic Ricardian model envisages a single factor, labor, which can move freely between industries

Well, there's your problem, right there.

But really, It's not so much that people get sentimental over difficult, industrial labor (although they can, and why not?), but that they had little choice whether to start such a trade, and then little choice again on when and how it leaves them.

World trade is great, but not on the current terms of exploitation. Most people have no say in where their own jobs go, and it is humiliating. There is little dignity in it.

Combine that with stagnant growth in wages (in the US) and you can't expect people not to piss on your economic model, that doesn't benefit them in ways that they can direct.
posted by eustatic at 6:49 AM on January 28, 2007

Ricardo's Difficult Idea: Why non-economists don't, can't or won't understand comparative advantage.

that idea only works in a) a world at peace b) a world where the cost of transport is bearable c) a world where all people directly and obviously benefit from the changes, not just a few

c) has already failed to a degree, thus the political opposition ... if a) and b) fail, too, then that's it
posted by pyramid termite at 7:01 AM on January 28, 2007

Eustatic; it's humiliating to lose a job, but it happens. Why does it make a difference if the competition is in the next city over or the next country?
posted by ~ at 7:03 AM on January 28, 2007

According to Ricardo, each nation should specialize in those activities in which it excels, so that it can have the greatest advantage relative to other countries.

Even a Chinese worker expects to get paid something, so maybe the future really is in Africa and a return to slavery.
posted by three blind mice at 7:22 AM on January 28, 2007

Why does it matter, asks the comment above this. Simple. I lose a job in (say) making blue jeans at a clothing factory. I try for a job using what skills I have at another plant in another city., But if all the plants close because the work is now done in China, then do I move to China for work?
The pdf file cited earlier is interesting because it concludes with the many benefits of globalization but then notes that many workers will be hurt but the political system can in some fashion help them! That is what the Democrats are now saying too. In short: don't change an ything simply subsidize the unemployed! like farm subsidies?
IT workers know now that their business has picked up again but that a number of good jobs now taken by green card holders, brougcht in to undercut salaries and thus displace those trained for IT fields--and that is not an unskilled job, so what we have is globalization killing jobs for the unskilled and companies screwing over workers here for the skilled.
posted by Postroad at 7:25 AM on January 28, 2007

Even a quarter century ago Burberry's was farming stuff out. It was a status thing to have a "real" coat from the UK as opposed to the licensed stuff made and sold in the U.S.

They should do what Ralph Lauren does. Have a "Purple Label" line of ultra-expensive stuff made in the UK-- and have the rest of the stuff (not that much cheaper) made overseas.
posted by wfc123 at 7:30 AM on January 28, 2007

The reason people have trouble with comparative advantage is that the winners are defused or invisible and the losers are concentrated and visible. You can point to actual people who are hurt by their jobs vanishing, you can point to people working in conditions and wages that we would not choose for ourselves. It is harder to point to the fact that money that people save has a better return than it otherwise would, that prices decrease, that those people working in conditions that we would not choose for ourselves are living a better life (by their own definition) than they otherwise would be able to. I am not a free market absolutist, but these transactions seem to do more harm than good.
posted by I Foody at 7:31 AM on January 28, 2007

Why does it make a difference if the competition is in the next city over or the next country?

Because British workers are inherently more deserving of any particular job than anonymous Chinese workers on the other side of the world. You see, Brits like hard work, but only hard work by other Brits. When Chinese people work hard, it's called unfair competition, undercutting, a race to the bottom, and so on. How dare foreigners work long hours to feed their families and improve their quality of life? Our jobs need protecting against such a menace, and I do mean our jobs; it should be clear that a worker's job belongs to him, or at least to other people of his racial group. Oh wait, I didn't mean racial group, I meant national group. Because nationalism and racism are completely different things.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 7:38 AM on January 28, 2007 [5 favorites has favorites]

pyramid, you should really try to understand that essay.
posted by bhnyc at 8:06 AM on January 28, 2007

Why does it make a difference if the competition is in the next city over or the next country?

You can follow your job to a new city, but you can't follow it to a new country.

A free market really needs three things - free movement of capital, goods and labour.

Our current wave of globalisation allows money and goods to move around the world relatively easily, but most workers are pretty much stuck. I'm fine with globalisation, I just want the EU to extend as far as Japan.
posted by Leon at 8:06 AM on January 28, 2007

wfc123: "
They should do what Ralph Lauren does. Have a "Purple Label" line of ultra-expensive stuff made in the UK-- and have the rest of the stuff (not that much cheaper) made overseas."

If the choice is between a British-made Honda, and a Japanese made Honda, I'll take the Japanese any day of the week -- and gladly pay a premium to do so.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:19 AM on January 28, 2007

In terms of alternative locations, we're already seeing Vietnam and some of the Eastern European countires rising as outsourcing destinations. So both Asia and Europe are spoken for, that only leaves Africa.

I thought Brazil was the next big thing. As it always is....

Speaking of Japan- Years ago I read the story of a man in Arkansas (correct me if I'm wrong) who started raising cultered pearls of high quality. Reps from Mikimoto chastised him in sorrow more than anger for taking on a cultural heritage that the Japanese had invented (1893) and would he please stop.

His response was that America felt the same way about cars, so if Japan were willing to shut down Honda, he would consider laying off the oysters.
posted by IndigoJones at 9:23 AM on January 28, 2007

Globalization theory depends on the falsehood that labor can move as freely as capital, and on the convenient sidelining of people that are in that "grey area" where they are too young to retire but considered too old for many types of job training. Every apology of globalization I've seen dismisses such cases with no real remedy. No organization will pay to send a 55-year-old person out to get a Bachelor's degree in anything, which is pretty much what you need for any job that doesn't involve you wearing a name tag nowadays. It's just not cost-efficient to do that. I guess those people can be recycled as soylent green...

wfc123 writes "They should do what Ralph Lauren does. Have a 'Purple Label' line of ultra-expensive stuff made in the UK-- and have the rest of the stuff (not that much cheaper) made overseas."

Interestingly enough Volkswagen does this now. They have two types of "Golf" -- the City Golf, which is made in Mexico (I think), and the Rabbit, which is made in Germany. The Rabbit (admittedly a newer-architecture model with much better interior space) sells for $6k more than the City Golf in the basic 5-door configuration in Canada.
posted by clevershark at 9:24 AM on January 28, 2007

Postroad : The pdf file cited earlier is interesting because it concludes with the many benefits of globalization but then notes that many workers will be hurt but the political system can in some fashion help them! That is what the Democrats are now saying too. In short: don't change an ything simply subsidize the unemployed! like farm subsidies?

Not really, farm subsidies may be conceived as strategically important as no country would like to depend on another one, expecially if thousand of kilometers away , for food supplies.

At the same time these subsidies may also be received by people that don't reinvest into modification and innovation of methods of production or improvement of products, so what one could have is a farmer doing a job he/she shouldn't be doing because, in theory, it should be not economical or outdated or replaced by another job.

If it is bad to have many little farmers sitting on cash doing nothing, it is even worse to have corporations doing that and manipulating the market so that a "need" for subsidies emerges out of nowhere. After all, the apologist of free market think that people like to compete to conquer market, but they forget strong players don't like to compete _at all_ and when it comes to realizing antitrust doesn't work, they go in _denial_

Financially one may even subsidize workers or create utterly useless pro-forma jobs like juggling balls or filling papers or making mission statements, but that destroyes local experience to actually _do something tangible_.

One could also , in wild theory, finance and produce very knowledgeable college students in all the scientific sectors, but that's hard or more difficult to do when the actual production is thousand km away. Yet given the "I don't give a fuck " tude about patents and copyright, seen as effectively slowing down and creating rentiers positions, few see that as positive long term investment..that of creating new know-how, new product, hi-tech stuff.

On top of this new hi-tech stuff can be easily overestimated and vapourware taken as gold, as the Internet Bubble allegedly demonstrated.

But these are not concerns of traders, whose big phat container ship make vietnam/whateverland 1 month or less away from any market. And if an economy goes down, they will just reverse the route of the ships.
posted by elpapacito at 9:45 AM on January 28, 2007

Outsourcing is human arbitrage.
posted by dhartung at 9:50 AM on January 28, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

The only bad thing about the outsourcing of jobs from rich countries to poor ones is that it's not fast or pervasive enough.
posted by signal at 9:50 AM on January 28, 2007

Leon and clevershark, I think you'll find that any defender of globalization and free markets worth his salt is also a defender of the free movement of people. This is a bit too radical for those who say "But the immigrants will flood our schools and our hospitals! They'll overwhelm our services! They'll come to take advantage of us and our generous welfare provisions!"

And that's pretty much why defenders of free markets don't like welfare either.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 9:52 AM on January 28, 2007

China develops infrastructure equivalent to Toronto every month, in cities that are so polluted that people are advised to not exercise outdoors.
The globalization mentality simply accelerates the inevitable environmental catastrophe that awaits us all.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:56 AM on January 28, 2007

Continuing the aside: the City Golf is, in fact, the previous-generation Golf, and it's made in Brazil/Mexico because production production everywhere else has long ago shifted to the new Golf/Rabbit line. The only reason the City Golf exists at all is because Canada doesn't have a cheap entry-level VW like the Polo in Europe, and apparently VW Canada decided the Rabbit was too expensive to appeal to entry-level buyers. (The Rabbit is cheaper in the States, and thus there's no City Golf down there.)

A lot of vehicles destined for the North American market are built in North America these days, even from foreign marques like Honda and Toyota. By and large, no one seems to notice or care very much. A more specific trend is seeing new auto plants or additional shifts added in Canada versus the U.S. because the math tells them it's cheaper to take on workers up north. Why? Among other things, subsidized healthcare. If only all outsourcing stories were like that one.
posted by chrominance at 10:06 AM on January 28, 2007

pyramid, you should really try to understand that essay.

and you should try to understand history and geography as well as economics - example - if trade went to hell during world war 1 and 2, what do you think would happen during world war 3? ... and how do you think that would affect us?

would civil war in china affect trade? ... how about war in the middle east? ... how about oil going up to OMG$ a barrel? ... how about a nuclear bomb in a container ship?

the problem with an "essentially mathematical way of understanding the world" is that world events aren't decided mathematically

again, it only works if you have peace, you have cheap transport, and you have a favorable political climate and all the fiddling with numbers or snorting that "you really don't understand" won't change those facts

you're the one who doesn't get it
posted by pyramid termite at 10:25 AM on January 28, 2007

Mutant -- nice comment, thanks. But your repeated reference to human beings as "resources" encapsulates much of what is wrong with modern capitalism.
posted by Rumple at 10:26 AM on January 28, 2007

Where are our children going to work?
posted by etaoin at 10:30 AM on January 28, 2007

etaoin - they're going to all star in their own reality tv shows with millions of indians and chinese laughing at them between shifts
posted by pyramid termite at 10:33 AM on January 28, 2007

pyramid termite, sounds good to me.
:(
posted by etaoin at 10:42 AM on January 28, 2007

Where are our children going to work?

More importantly, what will they wear?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:51 AM on January 28, 2007

I think you'll find that any defender of globalization and free markets worth his salt is also a defender of the free movement of people.

Only because without it the essential greed of the position is laid bare. Knowing full well that free movement of people is utterly impractical, they can espouse it -- and having espoused it can go on to demand globalization as if the free movement already existed.
posted by bonaldi at 10:53 AM on January 28, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

About Ricardo and comparative advantage - isn't there an assumption that the goods produced are otherwise the same, irrespective of who produces them? It's not quite true when part of the good is the brand. In this case Burberry's brand - part of the good it provides the purchaser - is its Britishness. A Burberry made in China is not something as good as a British Burberry, as far as its purchasers go.

What the new owners have discovered is what happens when you attack the core of your brand.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:32 AM on January 28, 2007

I think you'll find that any defender of globalization and free markets worth his salt is also a defender of the free movement of people.

Perhaps in your taxonomy of "being worth salt" this is true. What I see in the real world is the globalization and free market agenda being led by conservatives who expressly are against immigration and migration. Why? Because by dividing the workforce you conquer it, and can maintain deep wells of abject poverty. By placing the workforce in a state of tension regarding their job security enforce compliance and self-censorship of legitimate aspirations. It is win-win for the globalizing corporatists -- you can make the masses afraid of losing their job, then you can sell them the idea that immigration will threaten their jobs even more, thus establishing political support for anti-immigrant policies. These policies of fear have been especially effective in suppressing unionization and thus wages and benefits.

It is therefore disingenuous to maintain that the advocates of globalization "worth their salt" advocate free movement of labour - those advocates are not influencing the real world. Movement of labour is not as profitable as captive, scared, cheap labour. You may think you make your own reality but the rest of us live in the de facto world of globalization as corporate exploitation.
posted by Rumple at 11:34 AM on January 28, 2007

Rumple, the fact that obnoxious, disingenuous people sometimes advocate globalisation doesn't make it wrong, any more than the fact that Hitler was vegetarian makes vegetarianism wrong.
posted by matthewr at 11:57 AM on January 28, 2007

In principle, mathewr, I agree. In fact, The obnoxious, disingenuous people to whom I refer are not just advocating it, they are implementing it. You can keep running from those people but they are the operational face of globalization and the power behind how it is actually implemented.. Hence I refer to the real world rather than the fantasy world in which we only pay attention to those globalizers "worth their salt". Even the vegetarian Hitler (nice Godwin by the way) advocated a chicken in every pot.
posted by Rumple at 12:42 PM on January 28, 2007

Knowing full well that free movement of people is utterly impractical, they can espouse it -- and having espoused it can go on to demand globalization as if the free movement already existed.

That would only be a fatal flaw in the plan if (a) globalization had no positive outcomes without the free movement of labor, and (b) labor is currently entirely unfree to move. Neither are true. The benefits of globalization are well-documented (you hate Wal-Mart but you don't hate their low low prices, right?), and economic migration is a rising tide across the globe. It could be a hell of a lot better, but free movement of people is hardly non-existent, North Korea notwithstanding.

And neither is the freedom to travel impractical. It was the de facto standard across the world before the first world war, when passports were introduced (a case of civil liberties thoroughly lost, boding ill for current debates on ID cards). The EU has already (re-)implemented total freedom of movement within its borders.

The barriers that still exist are entirely the fault of racists and Welfare-statists (who are racists who don't realise it).
That article acknowledges the impracticality of a return to a world without borders, but todays borders are shocking misinventions. A border need not be more than a security-boundary designed for keeping bad guys out. The borders we have today are generosity-boundaries, designed to keep welfare in.

What I see in the real world is the globalization and free market agenda being led by conservatives who expressly are against immigration and migration.

This is the difference between conservative and libertarian.

It is therefore disingenuous to maintain that the advocates of globalization "worth their salt" advocate free movement of labour - those advocates are not influencing the real world.

And indeed conservatives occupy 51% of the political spectrum in America, while libertarians occupy <1%...
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 1:20 PM on January 28, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I think you'll find that any defender of globalization and free markets worth his salt is also a defender of the free movement of people.

Only because without it the essential greed of the position is laid bare. Knowing full well that free movement of people is utterly impractical, they can espouse it -- and having espoused it can go on to demand globalization as if the free movement already existed.

Well, I support globalization, as well as the free movement of people (I also support welfare, including subsidies for people displaced)

The underlying assumption in the anti-globalization movement is also greed, a belief that Americans and other first-worlders should have good, high-paying jobs, and that people in other countries shouldn't.

Just look at the Indian market. It's expected that programmers there will be making the same as those in the US in just a few years, rather then cratering the programming industry, it's created millions more middle class people, who will now be able to "consume" just as well as Americans could.

Of course, programming is done by individuals, while things like auto plants and manufacturing jobs can devastate whole towns when outsourced. So I do think subsidies for the unemployed by trade is a good idea. It would certainly be more helpful then farm subsidies.

And of course I support a useful welfare system (which doesn't exit in this country, by the way) and Universal Health Care.

I would also like to see labor and environmental standards enforced by bodies like the WTO, I don't think we should be "outsourcing" pollution and greenhouse gas production. Production cost will be always be lower where standards are laxer.

The idea that the only people who support globalization are conservatives is absurd.
posted by delmoi at 1:48 PM on January 28, 2007

They should do what Ralph Lauren does. Have a "Purple Label" line of ultra-expensive stuff made in the UK-- and have the rest of the stuff (not that much cheaper) made overseas."

They do, in Japan at least.

BURBERRY BLUE LABEL
posted by gen at 2:12 PM on January 28, 2007

Sorry, to clarify, Burberry Blue Label is a high-grade line, not sure where it is made though.
posted by gen at 2:13 PM on January 28, 2007

The benefits of globalization are well-documented (you hate Wal-Mart but you don't hate their low low prices, right?)
No, I hate the low, low prices too, just the same as I wouldn't knowingly buy sweatshop-produced goods, regardless of their price.

And neither is the freedom to travel impractical. It was the de facto standard across the world before the first world war
That's not wholly true, especially considering Ellis Island was turning back immigrants well before WWI.

The EU has already (re-)implemented total freedom of movement within its borders.
Neither is this wholly true. The new members, for instance, have limitations.

The barriers that still exist are entirely the fault of racists and Welfare-statists (who are racists who don't realise it).
1. "Fault" implies they're a bad thing, which you haven't proven.

3. Racists? The prejudice here isn't race, or nation, it's geography.

2. The benefits of the welfare state can be balanced against the supposed benefits of globalisation. I'm not sure that anyone who has the advantages of one would be willing to swop.

Sure, access to welfare is an unfair happenstance of birth -- does this mean you advocate 100% inheritance tax to strip the offspring of the wealthy of their unfair accident of birth?

The borders we have today are generosity-boundaries, designed to keep welfare in.
It may indeed be the case that immigration control is a necessary pre-condition of a welfare state. Even if so, surely the aspiration should be that everyone has access to one, not that we dismantle what ones we have to allow greater corporate profit?
posted by bonaldi at 3:18 PM on January 28, 2007

Makes sense that they'd move production to China. All the Burberry customers are asian anyway! {ducks}
posted by Sukiari at 4:56 PM on January 28, 2007

3. Racists? The prejudice here isn't race, or nation, it's geography.

Because geography is in no way correlated with race.
posted by delmoi at 5:28 PM on January 28, 2007

This is the difference between conservative and libertarian.

That's funny, I thought the difference was that conservatives get elected.

Which is just a snarky way of pulling us back to Rumple's point - the people aren't "worth their salt" by your definition.
posted by Leon at 5:31 PM on January 28, 2007

"...the people in charge aren't..."

Sometimes I words out.
posted by Leon at 5:31 PM on January 28, 2007

Everyone is allowed to vote with their dollar.
posted by furtive at 5:34 PM on January 28, 2007

3. Racists? The prejudice here isn't race, or nation, it's geography.

Because geography is in no way correlated with race.

Neither are the two synonymous, though. Sure, racists will use any pretext, but a welfare statist isn't likely to say "you can't get a council because you're black", while they are likely to say "you can't get housing benefit because you live in Uganda and we don't own any houses there".

The people who would deny the housing benefit to the Ugandan when he arrived $here – they're the racists.
posted by bonaldi at 5:49 PM on January 28, 2007

"get a council house"
posted by bonaldi at 5:50 PM on January 28, 2007

It's clear we don't see eye to eye on a number of fundamental issues, bonaldi and others, so I won't take it any further. I know you all mean well, so have a nice day :-)
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:14 AM on January 29, 2007

I reckon in 50 years when every consumer product in the world is made in China, they're going to show up at the UN and say "Alright bitches, give us all your money and oil or we stop supplying you with cheap TVs, cars, and Burberry clothing" and we'll all be like "Shit!" because we turned all our old factories into studios for filming reality TV shows.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 2:30 AM on January 29, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

We can threaten to stop sending them poor quality Canadian comedians we've never heard of in reply, then sit back and wait for the shipments to begin again. We can call it Mutually Assured Obnoxiousness.
posted by vbfg at 2:49 AM on January 29, 2007

Alright bitches, give us all your money and oil or we stop supplying you with cheap TVs, cars, and Burberry clothing"

Eheh :) Nice idea endsinvention, but that will happen a lot faster... Chinese aren't _that_ stupid..what use for $ or € as reality tv buying currency ?
posted by elpapacito at 5:09 AM on January 29, 2007

bonaldi, although this has been addressed above, to me that's an unnecessarily cynical take. Back to Bretton Woods the expectation of a "real" ILO is quite sincere among the globalization proponents worth discussing. Two possible simple explanations for the absence of a powerful ILO is that, unlike the owners of capital, the owners of labour have not pushed for binding international agreements, and on the other hand that the owners of capital have somehow hindered the development of such an organization. I don't think it's necessary to jump to the second, although I suppose this is what was said better by hoverboards, above.
posted by ~ at 6:26 AM on January 29, 2007

I reckon in 50 years when every consumer product in the world is made in China, they're going to show up at the UN and say "Alright bitches, give us all your money and oil or we stop supplying you with cheap TVs, cars, and Burberry clothing" and we'll all be like "Shit!" because we turned all our old factories into studios for filming reality TV shows.

That's a great idea for a reality TV show. Will Pakistan nuke India? Will Israel eat halal? Will Japan apologize to the Chinese? Which country makes it through to the next round? Find out on the next Ultimatum: United Nations.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:39 AM on January 29, 2007

"Alright bitches, give us all your money and oil or we stop supplying you with cheap TVs, cars, and Burberry clothing"

Uh, and what exactly are the workers at these shut-down factories getting paid with? The thrill of having the upper hand? Wait, how about this: YOU stop going to work until you get a 50% pay raise. See how far that gets you.
posted by GuyZero at 7:45 AM on January 29, 2007

I can't wait until they outsource the jobs of lawyers and accountants. Oh, I forgot: in the US, you can't even practice in the next-door state unless you've satisfied the demands of the licensing board. Interesting, isn't it: you'd almost think that professional organisations had a political purse and lobbying power that no longer applies to trades unions.
posted by holgate at 10:26 PM on January 29, 2007

I can't wait until they outsource the jobs of lawyers and accountants.

Lawyers are harder to outsource because it's tricky to get a good working knowledge of the domestic legal system from abroad, but math is the same everywhere, and indeed accountancy is already thoroughly outsourced.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 7:57 AM on January 30, 2007