What should liberals be trying to accomplish?

[phantom power]

It has been the basic goal of 20th century liberalism to build and sustain a large middle-class, country by country, through protectionist trade policies, union organizing and, most importantly, investments in education, infrastructure and the social safety net. That focus worked--for a time. But the last twenty years of globalization have been changing all that.

...it used to be that Henry Ford paid his employees well, because paying them well ensured a good, stable middle-class market for the purchase of his cars. A modern Henry Ford need not pay his employees well, since the cost of overseas labor is incredibly low, and the biggest growth market for cars lies outside the United States, anyway. A modern Henry Ford no longer needs the American middle class.

...

There's an implicit and uncomfortable moral argument to be made against latter 20th century Keynesianism as well: why, in fact, should an American worker make a good middle class income and drive a BMW, when a worker in Malaysia could do the same work for 1/10 the money while climbing out of abject poverty? The usual answer from Democratic politicians is rooted in nationalism and Americana, which is fine politics, but less than adequate morality. A more rational argument is that if you follow that process to its logical conclusion, there won't be a middle class consumer market for the product the worker is creating. But that's not so certain, either, as countries like China, Russia, Brazil and India (the BRICs) grow their own middle classes.

The reality of globalization is that almost all work that doesn't require either very specialized skills or face-to-face personal attention will eventually be fungible on a nearly limitless and desperate global labor market. Specialized skill jobs are few and far between; whole economies can't run on them. Face-to-face personal attention jobs don't typically pay very well.

...

The pushback must be on a global scale if it is to happen at all. No one nation's middle-class can stand alone against the global labor arbitrage juggernaut. Liberalism must go big or go home.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-should-liberals-be-trying-to.html

[Romulox]

1. The idea that global race-to-the-bottom worker exploitation is based on a "moral argument"

is laughable.


"Those who would stop world trade and technological advancement in order to protect an American middle-class lifestyle at the expense of an impoverished Brazilian can hardly lay claim to the moral high ground."

Democracy is supposed to be based on the concept of "enlightened self interest". More civics, less blogging.

[proud patriot]

2. ensuring a Republican doesn't get elected President

[deacon]

3. Firing john boehner. n/t

[Boojatta]

4. I suspect that the story of Henry Ford's motivation is at least in part an urban legend.

"it used to be that Henry Ford paid his employees well, because paying them well ensured a good, stable middle-class market for the purchase of his cars."


Perhaps, after raising wages, Ford noticed that his employees tended to buy Ford automobiles, and this became common knowledge among the general public, and a very good kind of advertising, because it is presumed that Ford employees knew better than others the inside story that told them to what degree the automobiles were well-made. I imagine that if employees had been close to being able to afford Ford automobiles, but couldn't quite afford them, then a marginal increase in their wages might be helpful, especially if they bought the automobiles partly on credit and therefore couldn't afford to take any risks, and had to do everything in their power to keep their jobs so that they could continue to make their payments.

However, what was Ford's initial motivation? It might have been partly a desire to keep dividends low, to persuade some investors to sell their stock so that Ford could buy it. Partly it might have been a desire for good PR among the pre-existing middle class. Mass production allowed Ford to produce an automobile that some middle-class people could afford, so Ford could afford to offend wealthy people who might have considered his wage policy to be akin to socialism.

[Lil Missy]

5. Taking all 3 chambers: President, Senate, and House.

[Boojatta]

6. It sounds as though a modern Henry Ford would have no economic transactions with Americans.

"A modern Henry Ford need not pay his employees well, since the cost of overseas labor is incredibly low, and the biggest growth market for cars lies outside the United States, anyway."

[dawg]

7. We should be trying to expand Medicare, not shrink it.

We should be trying raise the Social Security salary cap.
We should be working to protect civil liberties.
We should be attemtping to expand, simplify and improve upon the Affordable Care Act.

And .... probably most important of all .... we should be trying to get *real* campaign finance reform that would remove the excessive influence of money from our politics.

[Boojatta]

8. A comment linked from the blog

The following was posted by somebody with the username "deanarms":

The "morality play" issue comes into play in 2 ways. First, a Keynesian concept like "pump priming" (expansionary policies in an economic downturn) isn't motivated by pity for the unfortunates, but because Keynes's theories, graphs and charts demonstrate that this will help turn the economy around, thereby benefiting all, sans sentiment. Second, the insistence on austerity now, now, now is wrong because, among other things, it is premised, not on economic analysis, but on a world view that the profligates in the world's economies must be punished -- a true morality play. How dare the Greeks (or Portugese, or Spanish or Italians) while away their time on beaches and in coffee shops squandering the hard earned euros of the industrious north! Now, they must suffer through austerity, regardless that austerity does not create economic recovery.

[Zorra]

9. Occupying everywhere. nt