• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Clothes too cheap? Bush's gonna fix that!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...Dec12?language=printer
U.S. Imposes New Curbs on Clothing Imports
Barriers Are Intended to Curtail Chinese Shipments; Plan Roils Textile Industry

By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 13, 2004; Page A15

Eighteen days before the end of a 30 year-old system restricting international trade in textiles and apparel, the Bush administration is imposing new barriers on imported clothing that is likely to curtail an expected flood of Chinese imports in the first few months of next year.

The administration's measures include an embargo that will be imposed throughout the month of January on some of the clothing shipped to the United States during the final months of 2004.
_____World Markets_____
? Global Economies
? International Stocks
_____Ultimate Car Guide_____
? Car Resources: Find tips, resources, car reviews, special features and answers to your car-buying or selling questions.
_____Special Report_____
? Globalization and Its Critics
? In-depth Reports by Region
? World News and Updates
_____Free E-mail Newsletters_____
? TechNews Daily Report
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
? Personal Finance
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
? Personal Tech
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
? Tech Policy & Security
See a Sample | Sign Up Now

The new rules, scheduled to be published today in the Federal Register, were posted in recent days on a government Web site. Word of their impending imposition has stirred anger among clothing retailers and importers, who contend that the barriers contravene an international agreement to open the worldwide textile trade starting in 2005. Administration officials counter that the measures are justified because the amount of clothing shipped from some foreign countries in 2004 exceeded legal limits.

The dispute is emblematic of the pitched political battles that many experts predict will continue well past Jan. 1, when the global textile trade is supposed to become much more free and similar in nature to markets such as automobiles and consumer electronics where supply-and-demand forces prevail.

On that date, the quota system that has governed the textile trade since the mid-1970s will expire, eliminating rules that capped the amount of trousers, shirts, sweaters, towels and other such items that each developing country was allowed to ship to the United States, Europe and Canada. That system was aimed at protecting the domestic textile industries of the rich nations, and once it ends, allowing countries to ship as much as they can sell, China is widely forecast to garner the lion's share of the world market because of its low costs, enormous labor supply and competitiveness.

The U.S. textile industry is determined to continue fending off the Chinese export juggernaut, however. It has filed petitions with the U.S. government seeking the imposition of "safeguards" -- caps on imports that the United States and other governments may put on Chinese textile or apparel items if those items are flooding their markets. Beijing agreed to allow such safeguards until 2008 under the terms of its entry into the World Trade Organization.

The barriers on imports to be unveiled today are different from the safeguards, which are still under consideration. Since shipments of certain types of clothing during 2004 apparently exceeded quota ceilings, an inter-agency panel, the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, is imposing restrictions on the overshipped goods.

For such goods, "entry [into the U.S. market] will not be permitted until February 1, 2005," the new rules state. And after that point, Washington will allow the goods to trickle into the U.S. market based on a "staged" system, whereby the amount allowed each month into the market will be five percent of the 2004 quota ceiling.

For example, if the government determines that more Chinese-made blue jeans were shipped to the United States in 2004 than the quota system allowed, the overshipped Chinese blue jeans will be covered by the new barriers.

The rules don't specify which countries or which types of clothing are affected, but industry sources expect most of the impact to fall on Chinese imports, the greatest area of concern. The rules include special restrictions on three categories of Chinese imports -- bras, dressing gowns and knit fabrics -- that were already subject to safeguard limits.

The action "could have very serious and negative consequences for importers," the U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel said in a Dec. 9 memo to its members. IDS Insider, an information service for importers, told subscribers that that the administration "is clearly making every effort possible to appease the U.S. textile industry on the eve of the expiration of the . . . quota system."

By doing a favor for U.S. textile producers, the administration may secure their cooperation on other trade issues, industry sources said. Some sources interpreted the administration's action as going further, effectively accomplishing the same goal as safeguards by restricting imports shipped during 2005. But Mary Brown Brewer, a Commerce Department spokeswoman, said after conferring with a department attorney that the action "has no applicability to any goods shipped after December 31, 2004. It is only applicable to goods shipped before January 1."

Advocates for the U.S. industry argued that American importers and retailers and Chinese producers are getting what they deserve for having allowed clothing to be shipped in excess of the quota limits in 2004.

"This type of cheating and manipulation has been going on for years, and the system has never properly deterred it," said Auggie Tantillo, Washington coordinator for the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition. "So from our perspective, this [the imposition of the new barriers] is exactly what should happen, if not worse."

Officials at the Chinese Embassy did not return phone calls seeking a comment.
 
Gotta love politics. If he did not do this, you would be screaming about the lost textiles jobs here. This is a lose/lose subject.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Gotta love politics. If he did not do this, you would be screaming about the lost textiles jobs here. This is a lose/lose subject.

Oh no, believe me I wouldn't 🙂 I *LIKE* cheap stuff and I'm all for sending manual labor jobs to where they are most cost effective and pushing the American worker to elevate himself to a more educated, intellectual form of work 🙂

If he's interested, that is.

Jason
 
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: charrison
Gotta love politics. If he did not do this, you would be screaming about the lost textiles jobs here. This is a lose/lose subject.

Oh no, believe me I wouldn't 🙂 I *LIKE* cheap stuff and I'm all for sending manual labor jobs to where they are most cost effective and pushing the American worker to elevate himself to a more educated, intellectual form of work 🙂

If he's interested, that is.

Jason

Just like the foreign workers are interested too.
 
hell, I'll be the first to admit: A lot of times the foreign workers are BETTER than the American workers because they are, to use an old "Rocky" phrase, "Hungry." They want to rise up and they are willing to bust their asses to do it. Americans, many times, want a shitload of money for standing around scratching their asses (*Cough* Grocery Union Workers *Cough*)

Jason
 
don't forget Grocery Execs. the lowered earnings expectations means lower strike prices for their options

and sorry i have yet to see my grocery handlers "standing around scratching their asses ". maybe they only do that when they see you?
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
don't forget Grocery Execs. the lowered earnings expectations means lower strike prices for their options

and sorry i have yet to see my grocery handlers "standing around scratching their asses ". maybe they only do that when they see you?


No doubt baggers work hard, but it is not exactly a speciallized or dangerous work either.
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
don't forget Grocery Execs. the lowered earnings expectations means lower strike prices for their options

and sorry i have yet to see my grocery handlers "standing around scratching their asses ". maybe they only do that when they see you?

To be fair, I...well actually, yeah there IS one guy at Albertsons who scratches his ass a lot...but most are OK. They just don't do work that is skilled enough to justify $20 an hour. I have no idea about the grocery execs, but then, they don't tend to strike, either.

Jason
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
don't forget Grocery Execs. the lowered earnings expectations means lower strike prices for their options

and sorry i have yet to see my grocery handlers "standing around scratching their asses ". maybe they only do that when they see you?

Wow, you must go to a nice grocery store. I get to deal with all the grocery checkers standing around trying to figure out what to do when the printer says it's out of paper (god how I wish I was kidding).
 
Since this thread is already going offcourse as it is, I guess it wouldn't hurt to ask if there is any Grocery Execs/Management reading this thread. I need all the advice I can get (future grocery assistant manager here)

Oh, and welcome back charrison 🙂

</offtopic>
 
wow, you really fell for it if you think they actually make $20/hour. they make $12/hour which is not impressive when rent is close to $1000/month and pretty much every living expensive is upto 50% higher than the rest of the nation

the execs knew by hiring a single person at each store at $20/hour that they could use that to make every sheep believe that ALL union grocery workers make $20/hour. well i suppose grocery execs make $2000/hour.
 
Originally posted by: phonemonkey
Wow, you must go to a nice grocery store. I get to deal with all the grocery checkers standing around trying to figure out what to do when the printer says it's out of paper (god how I wish I was kidding).

yes, nice indeed. while the replacement scab workers didn't know how to scan a coupon. (and to top it off my roomate was one, the funny thing after they fired him was that Albertsons sent him an expired check for $.01, had he cashed it he would have been hit with a $35 bounced check fee)

for Halloween they went as striking Ralph's workers
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
wow, you really fell for it if you think they actually make $20/hour. they make $12/hour which is not impressive when rent is close to $1000/month and pretty much every living expensive is upto 50% higher than the rest of the nation

the execs knew by hiring a single person at each store at $20/hour that they could use that to make every sheep believe that ALL union grocery workers make $20/hour. well i suppose grocery execs make $2000/hour.

I know *personally* a guy who works at Albertsons, he makes $19.50 CHECKING GROCERIES. I have a cousin who works in the stock warehouse at Stater Bros. and he makes $21.00 an hour.

Tell me again what I fell for? You're quoting STARTING, ENTRY LEVEL wages for the lowest level positions.

In either case, they aren't even worth $12 an hour. Minim wage, TOPS. You shouldn't think of these as lifelong "raise a family" types of jobs, they should be short-term TRANSITIONARY jobs to hold you over while you get educated enough to make something worthwhile out of yourself.

Jason
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Originally posted by: phonemonkey
Wow, you must go to a nice grocery store. I get to deal with all the grocery checkers standing around trying to figure out what to do when the printer says it's out of paper (god how I wish I was kidding).

yes, nice indeed. while the replacement scab workers didn't know how to scan a coupon. (and to top it off my roomate was one, the funny thing after they fired him was that Albertsons sent him an expired check for $.01, had he cashed it he would have been hit with a $35 bounced check fee)

for Halloween they went as striking Ralph's workers

When the scab workers started, yes they sucked, no question about it. In about 3-4 weeks they were up to snuff, and at least at my local Albertsons and Ralphs, the scab workers were BETTER, FASTER and much friendlier than the usual crowd of Union grunts.

Homer Simpson summed it up best:
I always wanted to be a Teamster. Mmmm....lazy and surly....

Jason
 
LOL, probably true, especially if they end up UNIONized. I *used* to be all for Unions, but then, Unions used to be all about protecting SKILLED labor; nowadays they just want high wages for any shmuck with two hands and a heartbeat.

Jason
 
Originally posted by: bozack
this seems like something Dave would be in favor of....odd that he isn't posting praise here 🙂

Hey, just saw this.

Cool, sure. let's just put a giant Wall around the U.S. like China's Great Wall.

Ports, we don't need no stinking ports.

 
Originally posted by: charrison
Gotta love politics. If he did not do this, you would be screaming about the lost textiles jobs here. This is a lose/lose subject.

Hey, where have you been hiding CH???


Anyway, this is odd, there is no Cotton/Textile Industry in the U.S. left.

Hell the Building that used to be the Cotton Exchange here in New Orleans is now Condos.


 
I think that before they impose quotas like this they need to study the buying patterns. I would guess that quotas should not be monthly but matched up with one quarter to coincide with the seasonal change of clothing style from winter to spring to summer to fall.
 
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

I know *personally* a guy who works at Albertsons, he makes $19.50 CHECKING GROCERIES. I have a cousin who works in the stock warehouse at Stater Bros. and he makes $21.00 an hour.

Tell me again what I fell for? You're quoting STARTING, ENTRY LEVEL wages for the lowest level positions.

In either case, they aren't even worth $12 an hour. Minim wage, TOPS. You shouldn't think of these as lifelong "raise a family" types of jobs, they should be short-term TRANSITIONARY jobs to hold you over while you get educated enough to make something worthwhile out of yourself.

Jason

Who gave you the right to describe what a job is "worth?"

Here, I'll tell you what a job is worth: Each worker is paid by the amount of money he produces for the company. If those workers did not produce $20 worth of work per hour THE BUSINESSES WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO STAY IN BUSINESS!!. They would be losing money with every shift.

(Appeal to authority here: this is a summary of the demand side for the neo-classical model of labour economics, with it's focus on the marginal product of labour. Probably not neccessary, but just so you don't think this is coming out of my ass.)

High wages are not a karmic reward for going to school, they are compensation for the fact that you are more productive, ie, make more money for the company. If you are in a business where you make a lot of money for the company, without education, then you "deserve" as much money as the next guy.

I repeat: You deserve as much money as you make the company with your work. You will not make a penny more. In some circumstances, you may make less. But those are pretty rare circumstances. If you are in a town with only one employer, like mill towns. Or, some specialized industries, where there is only one hirer for your skill set in any given town.

And who are you to say what people should do with their lives? Who gave you the authority to decree that those who produce enough profit for their companies despite their low skills should only stay there temporarily?

And something you should realize: Not everyone has the ability to do well in school, even plumbing school. Due to poor family life, or poor primary education, or just a low level of native intelligence, many people just don't know how to do the school thing. Unless you want to pass a law saying they can't have children, then you need to make sure that they can make a living wage somehow.
 
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

I know *personally* a guy who works at Albertsons, he makes $19.50 CHECKING GROCERIES. I have a cousin who works in the stock warehouse at Stater Bros. and he makes $21.00 an hour.

Tell me again what I fell for? You're quoting STARTING, ENTRY LEVEL wages for the lowest level positions.

In either case, they aren't even worth $12 an hour. Minim wage, TOPS. You shouldn't think of these as lifelong "raise a family" types of jobs, they should be short-term TRANSITIONARY jobs to hold you over while you get educated enough to make something worthwhile out of yourself.

Jason

Who gave you the right to describe what a job is "worth?"

Thank you :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

I know *personally* a guy who works at Albertsons, he makes $19.50 CHECKING GROCERIES. I have a cousin who works in the stock warehouse at Stater Bros. and he makes $21.00 an hour.

Tell me again what I fell for? You're quoting STARTING, ENTRY LEVEL wages for the lowest level positions.

In either case, they aren't even worth $12 an hour. Minim wage, TOPS. You shouldn't think of these as lifelong "raise a family" types of jobs, they should be short-term TRANSITIONARY jobs to hold you over while you get educated enough to make something worthwhile out of yourself.

Jason

Who gave you the right to describe what a job is "worth?"

Here, I'll tell you what a job is worth: Each worker is paid by the amount of money he produces for the company. If those workers did not produce $20 worth of work per hour THE BUSINESSES WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO STAY IN BUSINESS!!. They would be losing money with every shift.

You forget one little detail, the grocery store business is highly unionized.

(Appeal to authority here: this is a summary of the demand side for the neo-classical model of labour economics, with it's focus on the marginal product of labour. Probably not neccessary, but just so you don't think this is coming out of my ass.)

High wages are not a karmic reward for going to school, they are compensation for the fact that you are more productive, ie, make more money for the company. If you are in a business where you make a lot of money for the company, without education, then you "deserve" as much money as the next guy.

I repeat: You deserve as much money as you make the company with your work. You will not make a penny more. In some circumstances, you may make less. But those are pretty rare circumstances. If you are in a town with only one employer, like mill towns. Or, some specialized industries, where there is only one hirer for your skill set in any given town.

No, you will make many pennies more when you are part of a union that has used government force to increase your wages.

And who are you to say what people should do with their lives?

Since you believe in having a government who are you to tell other people what to do with their lives?

Who gave you the authority to decree that those who produce enough profit for their companies despite their low skills should only stay there temporarily?

Who gave the government the authority to decree higher wages for union workers?

And something you should realize: Not everyone has the ability to do well in school, even plumbing school. Due to poor family life, or poor primary education, or just a low level of native intelligence, many people just don't know how to do the school thing. Unless you want to pass a law saying they can't have children, then you need to make sure that they can make a living wage somehow.

Your claim to positive rights is completely absurd. Other people's status in this world is not my concern or anyone else's. My only legal obligation to society is to leave other people alone, not "make sure they can make a living wage somehow."

 
Now the government decrees higher wages for union workers? That's hilarious.

Unions have a predictable outcome - fewer employees making more money per employee, but still earning their marginal value to the company.

Having a union with exclusive bargaining rights (most don't; it's a combination of hurdles required to break the union, and social pressure that keep them in place) is the same as having a monopolistic business in the private sector; everything changes hands at 'market prices' but one party gets to choose the combination of price and output in their own best interests.

I've already posted what I think about outsourcing; you have to let efficiencies play out, but controlling the rate of change may be beneficial to avoid economic collapses and bankruptcies.

I think your claim against living wages is ridiculous. There are an infinite number of ways that human production could be divided among human beings; the market is a particularly useful one, but not historically the only one, or even the most important one (that would be violence). So to choose an arbitrary system and accept no responsibility for people who might slip through the cracks of that system is no better than any other form of violence.
 
Back
Top