The coup in Honduras - and the at best grudging and vacillating support in Washington for the restoration of President Zelaya - has thrown into stark relief a fundamental fault line in Latin America and a moral black hole in U.S. policy toward the region.What is the minimum wage which a worker shall be paid for a day's labor?
If you say that the leverage of the U.S. consumer market should be used to support higher wages for poor workers in poor countries, rather than the opposite, you're likely to be told that this is not allowed. This leverage has been allocated to something else. The power of the U.S. market can only be used for things like forcing developing countries to enforce the patents, trademarks, and copyrights of U.S. pharmaceutical companies, software companies, and Hollywood.
Indeed, if you say that we should be supporting efforts to raise the minimum wage in Honduras and Haiti, you'll likely to be accused of "trying to impose American values." But this is a baldfaced lie, the twisted-mirror image of the truth. The majority of Hondurans and the majority of Haitians want the wages of workers producing for export to the United States to be raised. Far from imposing "American values," in Honduras and Haiti, we're imposing Wall Street values, every day, through U.S. government policy, against the wishes and interests of the majority of the population, there and here.
So, the next time some lying moron invokes "economics" to "explain" to you that the wages of impoverished third world workers who produce for the U.S. market cannot be raised, remember the coup in Honduras, and how Washington sat on its hands while a democratically elected government was punished by greedy elites with a military coup for trying to raise the minimum wage.
Originally posted by FMFI have always thought the world would be better of if the US stayed out of everyone elses busness.
Here's a rather interesting article:
[b]The Minimum Wage and the Coup in Honduras by Robert Naiman
[quote]The coup in Honduras - and the at best grudging and vacillating support in Washington for the restoration of President Zelaya - has thrown into stark relief a fundamental fault line in Latin America and a moral black hole in U.S. ...[text shortened]... cy.org/node/287
What credence do people give this analysis and line of argument?[/b]
Originally posted by joe beyserThat is a coherent view. So, what impact do you think it would have on the minimum wage in countries that produce stuff for export to the U.S. or the wages of workers in U.S. factories producing stuff that will be shipped back to the U.S. market?
I have always thought the world would be better of if the US stayed out of everyone elses busness.
Originally posted by FMFthe article you linked to references "lying morons". etc. etc. why not check the rest of the site to see if the suspicions raised pan out? why BOTHER to read the linked article if the site owners are that far off mainstream?
zeeblebot why are you spamming this thread? Have you read the article? The question I asked was: what do you think of the article's analysis re: the minimum wage in Honduras (and elsewhere in Latin America)? Do you have a personal view on the topic in hand?
Originally posted by zeeblebotThen don't bother. Spamming the thread with cut & pastes achieves nothing. The issue is the minimum wage in Latin America - and the degree to which it may have been a factor in the Honduran coup. Do you have a view?
why BOTHER to read the linked article if the site owners are that far off mainstream?
Originally posted by zeeblebotIt's a polemical piece. Do you know what 'polemic' means? The text in the OP is a "source" only in as much as it presents an opinion that I have suggested we debate. You seem to be wanting to wish this opinion out of existence through the sheer intensity of your pedantic anal retention. The OP states an opinion (and provides a link to the opinion-in-full) and then asks for posters' opinions. Your opinion, thus far, appears to be 'we shouldn't debate it because zeeblebot's opinion is that he doesn't agree with the opinion of the person whose opinion is referenced in the OP'. Do you have any view apart from that one?
can you post something from a source not quite as biased as JustForeignPolicy apparently is?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think pro-poor policies - regardles of how much or little traction they have in reality - indicate to elites (and their sub-set senior military figures) that their little uppity president (restricted undemocratically, as he is, by an unreformable constitution foisted on the country by a butt-covering military dictatorship a quarter of a century ago) is on the wrong page and for that, along with setting other things in motion that are not in the interests of the powers that be, he has to be dealt with before any inconvenient precedents are established.
I find it unlikely that a coup would have been staged for such a small thing alone, although it could have been a contributing factor.