It is sometimes a reporter's job to just rehash what is fed to them by their subjects. When reporting about unions, a reporter will no doubt hear that unions think it a fundamental human right for workers to join a union:
"When Wal-Mart denies Canadian workers their right to join a union and bargain collectively, it is thumbing its nose at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the basic rights of all workers and families in Canada," said Michael Fraser, UFCW national director. "It's an outrage that Canadian governments are tolerating this routine denial of basic rights by Wal-Mart."Aren't reporters supposed to give a little thought about this fundamental right of association? The implentation of this right by the UFCW at Wal-Mart will mean a minority of Wal-Mart workers will have union dues and a worker contract involuntarily imposed on them, and not just by a majority of their co-workers, but by the legal representation of a national federation they do not wish to participate in. Just how is it a fundamental right to coerce a minority, allegedly for their own good?The unions will announce tomorrow a national labour movement campaign, as well as specific initiatives involving Wal-Mart.
Can't one also insist that when Wal-Mart refuses to run a union shop, it is utilizing its right to employ its capital where and with whom it sees fit? It is utilizing its right to "withhold services"...
Posted by Kevin on March, 23 2005 at 11:42 AM
Dave Meleney wrote:Kevin:
You are the economist. How much has Walmart been slowed down by all this union organizing? And neighborhood organizing? How much death by measles and diarrhea and other petty causes will ensue in the poorest provinces of China, India, and Guatemala because of this delay? Where are the economists who'll do important back-of-the-envelope estimates which can lead to breakthru thinking and better later estimates?
all the best,
Dave Meleney-- March 23, 2005 03:45 PM ∞
Kevin Brancato wrote:Dave,
Fascinating.
I have no idea where those economists are, since they'd have to be a hell of a lot smarter than me and willing to spend loads of time on both development and regional economics. A lot of economists don't care to get their hands dirty doing this type of thing.
I personally have not thought through even rough quantitative estimates of the effect union and "community" resistance of WM has had on the pace third world industrial development, even though I have repreatedly voiced my opinion that we should not want to keep peasants in the fields longer than they want to be there...
The effect of WM on third world health would have to be measured very stragely; I don't even know how to do it.
You'd need a measure of the health/wealth effect of factory working vs. the status quo in developing nations (I have no idea how this is done). You'd need a measure of how many workers are pulled from the field (as opposed to other urban occupations) to produce a specific dollar value of output in those nations. You'd need a per-US-store measure of how much more output wal-mart buys from these countries compared to the retailers WM replaces. Then you figure out the number of store-years of delay put up by union and community resistance.
Every store-year lost implies fewer goods bought from developing nations, and fewer factories there, and fewer people in those factories with higher earnings and working conditions. I think you get where I'm going.
Did I mention this is really, really hard? Ouch.
-- March 23, 2005 04:46 PM ∞
Dave Melene wrote:Dear Kevin:
Wow! That's a daunting list of analytical difficulties! Guess we'd best dismiss the question.... even tho our sense is we might be talking about millions of cases of death by TB, diarrhea, and measles. oh, well!
Say, before I go... what if one really wanted to find a way....
Take 3 scenarios:
1. WalMart and other big box retailers.... continue to see the vilification double every 9 months and they quit growing at all. Suppose the wave of attitude against imports all over the 1st world brought China's massive growth to a complete halt. This is not so unimaginable, had John Edwards been just a scosch more convincing one week earlier in Iowa, we might be getting there right now, not so?
2. That sudden halt caused massive dislocation and unemployment in China.... and then in California ...(Oh heck, while that's exactly what'd happen if liberals had their way with all the big box ports of entry for Chinese goods...let's dismiss this one) and do ...
2b. China's growth is cut in half by the forces just described.
3. China's growth continues apace.
How hard is it to estimate the childhood deaths by comparing:
#1, the current deaths due to poverty (functioned by some improvement even without growth?)...with
#2 the deaths in countries that are now much like China will be in 15 years with 4% growth, with
#3 the deaths in countries that are like China will be in 15 years with 8% growth?Can't we read the numbers off a chart somewhere?
Like this world bank site which says that half of all childhood death involves malnutrition!http://www.developmentgoals.org/Child_Mortality.htm
"Child mortality is closely linked to poverty. In 2002 the average under-five mortality rate was 121 deaths per 1,000 live births in low-income countries, 40 in lower-middle-income countries, and 22 in upper-middle-income countries. In high-income countries, the rate was less than 7. For approximately 70 percent of the deaths before age five, the cause is a disease or a combination of diseases and malnutrition that would be preventable in a high-income country: acute respiratory infections, diarrhea, measles, and malaria."
Of course it's not WalMart specific. If a general intro about WalMart's role in turning China into our workshop and thereby helping to reduce needless childhood death by "half" (I'm pretty sure we can find that number on a chart, no?)is not enough... then I guess we have to admit that Sam didn't do the whole thing all by himself. We can live with that, can't we?
all the best,
Dave Meleney-- March 25, 2005 04:37 PM ∞
