"Fair Trade" isn't enough to help U.S. workers, we need a better gameplan

First to clarify, by "Fair Trade" I mean a trading system in which a certain standards for labor practices and environmental stewardship must be followed. Also implied is a shift in power from currently dominant capital to labor, and a renewed emphasis on social and economic justice in our trade policies. A system based on "Fair Trade" is a noble vision, but it for all of the good it might do it will not help the American worker that much.

First, it will be impossible to put in place a system strong enough to help American workers. Impossible not just because the corporate interests aligned against it too powerful, that we could hope to overcome, but impossible because the governments of China,India, and Mexico as well as smaller developing nations don't want it. Are corporate interests behind this lack of acceptance for "Fair Trade"? Perhaps to a point, but that is not the main driver. In the case of China in particular, corporate interests have nothing to do with it. The Chinese leadership's main priority is to make China the center of world production, and it will not easily accept any barriers that restrict or even slow down this trend.

Of course, the benefits of some type of "Fair Trade" arrangement go beyond just helping the American worker. In particular, the perceived need for environmental standards may be great enough to overcome China's economic nationalism. But the idea that labor and environmental standards can be set high enough so that an American textile worker can produce as cheaply as an Chinese/Indian/Mexican worker is not realistic.

Second, even if American labor and environmental standards were adopted worldwide, this only solves part of the deindustrialization problem; cheap labor is not the only issue for American industry and the American worker. While China captures the most attention, the U.S. actually runs substantial trade deficits with many nations that pay similar wages. The largest deficits (besides China) have been to two nations -- Germany and Japan -- that actually have substantially higher manufacturing wages. To Germany and Japan, America is a cheap labor locale.

It is the loss of industrial capacity and technological competitiveness in manufacturing that is responsible for this part of the problem. Policies that enable our domestic manufacturers to catch up (while also keeping them in line) are necessary to deal with this aspect of America's deindustrialization.


For these reasons, "Fair Trade" is a great ideal for the world, but not a realistic or complete strategy for the American worker and its advocates should recognize as much.

By that, I mean that we must move away from the idea of the ever-expanding economy which only seeks constant growth through expanding production, to one that doesn't view production as the end-all, be-all.

John Kenneth Galbraith recognized this back in the 1950's. Essentially, what we have done is created a monster that will eat itself. Our neverending expansion requires the creation of more consumer wants in order to create expansion. It's a neverending cycle.

Actually, the labor movement helped to solidify many of these assumptions. By repeatedly gaining in wages, workers then had more disposable income to spend -- so more wants were created for them to spend their money on. While this was certainly necessary in the beginning of the labor movement, it became a self-defeating prophecy as the post-war boom really took hold.

One thing we need to do is to start responding to increased efficiency not with calls for continual expansion, but rather for more TIME back. Here in the US, we have consistently traded our time for more money. And where has it gotten us? We're overworked, overstressed, we don't get to spend enough time with our kids, we slave away in jobs we hate. Yet, we have to keep making more money to maintain a certain lifestyle -- as opposed to cutting back in order to gain a better quality of life.

Sure, simple living groups are good for INDIVIDUALS to make this change, but it has to be more systemic. We need to identify and promote policies that help to establish this kind of a shift on a societal level. Personally, I really believe that we're pretty much doomed if we DON'T do it.

By that, I mean that we must move away from the idea of the ever-expanding economy which only seeks constant growth through expanding production, to one that doesn't view production as the end-all, be-all.

John Kenneth Galbraith recognized this back in the 1950's. Essentially, what we have done is created a monster that will eat itself. Our neverending expansion requires the creation of more consumer wants in order to create expansion. It's a neverending cycle.

Our situation has changed soemwhat since the 50's. At that time the U.S. was able to produce for itself what it consumed -- that is no longer the case.

I agree with the point you make about using increased productivity to increase leisure time rather than generating more economic activity, and hence more material wealth. The problem is that most people are needing to work harder just to maintain the same middle-class standard of living that was common in the 60's. Except for a few at the top, material wealth has largely stagnated in the last 30 years or so even though our average work hours have increased.