Econ majors, what goods do we have a competitive advantage over developing nations particularly nations we gain clothing from? Also, what would the effects of bringing clothing industry back to the US?
I'm writing a debate case proposing regulations that encourage foreign clothing companies to sell only to those countries' domestic clothing companies (ideally also applying a shift toward the US domestically making clothing).
Because the clothing would be made domestically, prices would go up, but ideally, also lower-income employment rate would go up. Hypothetically, would one out-do the other? I feel this would be a progressive job growth program because the lower-class would experience a rise in employment while upper-class would experience marginal rise in costs that can be easily internalized. MAYBE the middle-class will endure harms but I'm willing to bite that harm.
The other side of the argument is that if we are experiencing trade where these developing countries have a comparative advantage over us in clothing, then there is something we should have the advantage to agree to trade and I'm curious if there will be backlash when we stop trading with them.
We're much better at high tech industry than much of the world. That being said, bringing textiles back won't save the middle or lower classes. What will is teaching those at the bottom and in the middle skills that fit into the higher tech industries we've got or into the service sector (read: plumbers, electricians, things we can't automate or do without). I'm afraid you're fighting the uphill battle of uphill battles. The only way you're gonna bring manufacturing back is tariffs or changing clothing regulations to require a degree of quality you can only achieve in a factory that isn't a hole in the wall somewhere in the Hunan Province.
The goal isn't to help or economy, the goal I'm setting out in this case is for the elimination of sweat shops in developing countries
Well that's a whole different ball game. If you're assuming we're the market that buys enough to influence where sweatshops are that's a flawed argument. Manufacturing in China sells a lot to us, but it also sells a lot to Europe, larger Asia, and most importantly, itself. Domestic sales in the third world countries in question can outsell us simply by quantity. China's got 1.5ish billion people and their middle class is booming. We buy a lot from them, but the industry could survive if we pulled out. Same goes for India, Bangladesh, take your pick. Only way to fix sweatshops is to unionize the workers there or wait for prosperity to grow in the long run which will inspire better regulations as it did here.
Well, my case makes the developing nations the actors not the US. My idea is that if the nations set regulations so that they have to sell to only domestic buyers, then it would create an incentive for those people to unionize. I'm making the argument that because a worker in the developed nation is not actually buying the product that he / she is making, then he doesn't see the inherent value of his work. A company would either have to sell the products at a price closer to what they are paying the relative cost of labor or the workers will feel undervalued and be given the reason to unionize and demand better treatment / pay. It's based off an argument from Estranged Labour - Marx
Alright well then if we're talking about the developing nations you'd have to focus on protecting those who try to unionize from their employers. These nations are opposed to unionization and collective bargaining because it'll drive up the cost of doing business and manufacturing will simply relocate somewhere cheaper. You have to overcome that deficit of will on the part of governments to protect a labor movement from punitive action on the part of corporations. In china they have a transient worker population so large they could lay off an entire factory's workforce and have it full again by the end of the week. It's pretty hard to unionize when doing so will inevitably cost you your job.
Regarding last part, exactly what happened during our early days of collective bargaining so they have a model to follow. Regarding moving, that's good in my mind because it allows businesses ready to accommodate to the needs of the workers to strive without competition
But how do you combat the ensuing surge in unemployment and recession that'll follow that kind of business divestment?
The unemployment is already low enough that it would be a comparable stagnate (like the economy will suffer but in so much it is a developing nation, it would be able to see it as a stage toward developing into a proper developed nation) the manner it is developing now is leading toward a stagnation in its development
Essentially, it won't become a developed nation if it stays a source for other nations cheap clothes
No but mass unemployment as textiles manufacturers pull out will only worsen the issue of third world poverty and hand to mouth living. It'll also open up room for other industries to fill with predatory practices that will harm only the workers who've not only now lost their original jobs for the sake of an idea, but who must also now deal with an even worse status quo working in some other non-textile sweatshop
Well, I'm using textile as a model for others. And the manner it is at right now is stalling it's ability to develop more
We have innovation, it's always been America's principle export
Capital-intensive goods (i.e. goods whose production has a higher ratio of capital to workers). Cars, airplanes, computers. And yes domestic prices would go up but extra employment would probably be smaller than the number of jobs in the previous foreign factory, because more would be automated in the US because labor costs are higher
Not in the fashion industry
