One might ask, though, why service jobs have to be _so_ lower-paid. Without the labor movement devising a way of raising the living standard of service workers dramatically, the labor movement is dead, and even the current tight labor market (which won't last forever) can't be taken advantage of. (This is a gender issue as well, as you -- a femecon subscriber -- should know.) Even in factory jobs, trade cannot explain the steep decline in wages for meatpacking workers, for instance. And what of two-, three-, or more-tiered wage schedules for the same work that sacrifice new hires? And the growth of low-paying subcontractors in the USA?
Also, what happened to Kim Moody's idea (I think), which focuses on the distribution and warehouse workers (Teamsters, longshoremen, etc.)? They are not in competition with workers in Indonesia. And they (fully organized) have the power to cripple economy. Hey, a general strike for universal health care, anyone?
Besides, just-in-time production has created many weaknesses for capital, in that more efficient production is dependent upon the smooth, continuous production at key factories (effects of several recent GM strikes made this clear). Why not think about strategies that exploit this fact?
In short, there are far better & more important things to do at home, rather than focusing on whether or not China is in the WTO.
>the general law of capital accumulation on a world scale:
>FYI, this is not the preferred explanation because the U.S.
>labor movement is not communist.
Indeed it is not, but it will have to become so, whether or not workers feel comfortable using the C-word. Why not progressive isolationism, at least? Why not demand that America be a republic, not an empire (no foreign bases, no military interventions overseas, no military assistance to foreign countries, etc.)? That should resonate with American workers, whether or not they are leftist.
Yoshie