Was I Being Unfair in Sharply Criticizing Chinese Printers?

Where's YOUR money going? To China, my friend. To China.

If you thought my recent China post was more of a rant than an article, you are right. Offshore printing is an issue that gets me boiling.  I hope that I wasn’t misunderstood. I am not anti-China, nor am I anti-Chinese. What I am is anti-slave-like labor, anti-poor-working-conditions, and anti-business-profiteers using low prices to destroy the competition. In 1890 The Sherman Antitrust Act recognized the illegality of using low prices as a means to force out competition. If Sherman could be used against companies like AT&T, Microsoft, American Steel, etc. why can’t it be used against Chinese printers to prevent their unfair competition?

Someone wrote that I am just upset because China is doing to us what America did to Europe. It is not the same. America became a strong manufacturing and trading country because of innovation. We invented the assembly line, the steamboat, and the cotton gin. These innovations made products cheaper because they could be manufactured faster and get to market quicker. Other than in Taiwan, what has China invented in the last century to change the world? And I’m not too sure of Taiwan.  Oh sure, they may have come up with a product improvement here or there, but I’m racking my brains to think of anything new. So, they compete solely on being cheaper, and they accomplish that by underpaying workers, disregarding environmental impacts of their products, and keeping workers working in sweatshop conditions. Maybe that is China’s contribution, the sweatshop. Way to go China, you get to take credit for the sweatshop. Now there’s something to be proud about.

I have a business associate who is familiar with the situation of workers in Chinese print shops. He tells me that they stay in dorms during the working week because they put in 14 to 16 hours a day on the job. They also stay in dorms because it takes a half-day to travel to their homes. So a typical work week is 84 to 96 hours with one day off, and that day is spent largely in travel.

Those living high-on-the-hog business people in China, and anywhere really, who get away with being able to offer ridiculously low prices by taking advantage of poverty conditions in their countries should be brought to task. By engaging in this behavior they hurt their workers, and lead the world economy in a downward spiral. If the only way to compete is to duplicate their working conditions and wages, we can look forward to a very bleak existence. If you want to know what the future holds for America in 50 years, just look at where China is now. Do you like what you see?

It is true that American business people were once allowed to be as ruthless as the Chinese are now. It took many bloody union wars to force better working conditions and wages. There was a time when they were desperately needed and were run by dedicated men who truly were on the side of the workers. Will the unions be able to prevent the coming collapse of the middle class? It’s doubtful. Unions steadily lost ground through corruption and vilification by the ruling class. The upper 2% has almost total control over Washington, the Unions, and apparently the Supreme Court based on their recent rulings giving corporations and foreign entities unlimited rights to promote their political agendas. Look out China, your unfair competitive edge will dissipate when American’s standard of living drops to your level. Trading will then be equal, but sad, very sad indeed.


 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • BlinkList
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Ping.fm
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Diigo
  • Twitter
  • FriendFeed

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • http://www.ramprint.com/ Colin Jensen

    Hi Bill,

    The fundamental question of the free market is whether the point where supply-and-demand meet is where both variables are maximized. In other words, is the point where what workers are willing to work for and what businesses are willing to pay intersect also the point where everyone is happiest? I think yes. Both American subsidies vis-a-vis Unions and Chinese subsidies vis-a-vis “Planning” seek to “solve” the free market by demanding businesses live outside of that sweet spot. And so business will always migrate (per capita) to the freest market, which will by definition have the highest quality at the lowest prices. If I pay you more than you believe you’re worth, nothing good will come of it. If you work for less than you think you’re worth, nothing good will come of it. We may think we’re doing people a favor by shutting down “sweat shops,” but economists almost universally say we’re not. And so demand is defined by the market, not by any boss or employee.

    In other words, I believe it was the Wall Street Journal who pointed out that in 90% of cases throughout China, Vietnam and Korea, “sweat shop” employees were paid more than the average wage for their geographic area. They may have undeveloped markets and have to endure undeveloped working conditions, but they’re still getting more of what they want (whatever that is) than their counterparts.

       0 likes

  • http://www.billprintbroker.com Bill

    Hi Colin,

    Your points are well made, but still don’t address the problem of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Theoretically it is illegal to force companies out of business with below market prices.

    US printers CAN’T compete with a system where they have to pay a minimum wage that is 10 times higher than China’s. Also, I’ve heard that China levies a 24% import duty and we, the dee-ta-dee USA charge them only 2%. Who thought that was a good idea?

       0 likes

  • Brad Lee

    Where were you when the Japanese and now Korean Automakers did the same thing to the Big 3.Perhaps more of an out cry from good Americans like your self would also protect the domestic print market.
    Seriously folks when are we going to get it.

       0 likes

  • http://www.colinjensen.com/ Colin Jensen

    Bill, it is illegal to run at a loss for the purpose of decreasing competition, and that should be addressed. I’m just saying it doesn’t protect the free market to “cheat” in the same way China is. We need to do whatever it takes to remove their 24% import duty, not to raise ours… Remember, “free market” doesn’t mean “status quo,” nor does it mean “laissez faire” (depending on whom you ask). But it definitely means to free up the market, to increase competition and not protectionism.

    Thanks Brad, but I’m not sure which way you’re arguing. The Japanese and Korean automakers took over the world, and why? Because the Big 3, unwilling to do what it took to compete in a capitalist society, instead started crying “buy American!” They put out shotty cars, gave all their employees raises beyond what the market would support, and tried to solve all their problems with backroom deals and tariffs.

       0 likes

The Easy Way To Reach Bill Ruesch
He's available to help you with any of your printing, or publishing needs. Please contact him if you need a book, marketing materials, or anything else printed. His thirty-five years of experience, and thousands of happy customers is your guarantee of satisfaction.

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Subject

Your Message

An Interview With Bill Ruesch
100_0133
Successfully Market Your Book
learn how to sell a ton of books with The Author Platform A practical, easy to use, Internet marketing education in four simple-to-follow modules. Contains everything you need to know to make your self-published book a smash.
Read in Your Own Language
    Translate from:

    Translate to:

Locate posts easily
Where in the World are my Readers?
Copyright
© Bill Ruesch, Talking Through My Hat, 2010. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Bill Ruesch, Talking Through My Hat with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Improve the web with Nofollow Reciprocity.