TheAgitator.com
Moore, Canada, Hypocrisy
Monday, April 26th, 2004Over at Hit & Run, Brian Doherty notes that some are calling Michael Moore a hypocrite for outsourcing his website to Canadians. Doherty then mulls whether the ad hominem “hypocrite” charge really does much to advance public debate. Later, in the comments section, a discussion breaks out as to whether Moore really is even a hypocrite, given that he’s outsourcing to a country with “fair” labor practices and standards.
My take…
As for hypocrisy, I think it’s a perfectly legitimate charge, both rhetorically and, more importantly, when attempting to generate enough political momentum to pass the public policy you’d like to see implemented. I’ve always thought pointing out that, for example, Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson sent their kids to private school while at the same time advocating public schools for people who don’t make the money they do does a couple of things.
First, while you could certainly classify the charge as ad hominem (which won’t get you any debate points), you might also classify the charge as an appeal to authority — even better, a very reluctant one. Appeals to authority are perfectly legitimate in debate, and generally, the more reluctant the authority, the more weight the appeal carries (getting a tobacco executive to concede that cigarettes exacerbate asthma, for example, carries much more weight in argument than the mother of someone who died of asthma making the same claim). Pointing out that someone studied and well read on an issue like school choice as Clinton or Jackson also happens to send his/her kids to private school you might say is their way of revealing they don’t have much faith in public schools.
The hypocrisy card is all the more powerful politically. Moore will have a hard time playing up the “greedy corporations don’t care about Americans” angle now that we know he’s outsourcing part of his own “corporation” to Canadians. It’s not really an argument against his case (except as noted above), but it is an argument against him making that case.
As for whether or not Moore really is a hypocrite, I’d say he is. The bottom line on outsourcing is that people like Moore are insisting that U.S. coroporations take jobs away from Americans and giving them to foreigners.
I’m not sure what “fair” labor practices means. Is it “fair” that Canada’s minimum wage costs its lowest skilled workers a chance at a job to begin with? Would it be “fair” if Bangladesh insisted that any company doing business within its borders must meet U.S.-European-like labor standards and, consequently, no foreign companies invested, and so Bangladeshis were forced back into back-breaking subsistance farming, begging and/or prostitution? What exactly is “fair?”
I’d say “fair” means governments step back and let employers and employees find one another and let each extract what the other wants without barriers or obstacles.
Given that foreign workers are better off working for western companies than not working for them (or else they wouldn’t take the job), there’s simply no validity to the argument that they’re being exploited (in fact, western companies typically pay two, three, sometimes up to ten times the prevailing wage).
So the only real argument people like Moore have against outsourcing is that U.S. companies aren’t hiring U.S. workers. Or, that there’s some sort of patriotic obligation for American companies that benefit from American tax dollars (in the form of national defense, courts, laws, etc.) to employ domestic labor.
And Moore isn’t doing that with his website.
So yeah, he’s a hypocrite.
Outsourcing.
I belatedly posted this on another thread which was replete with arguments for and against outsourcing. I think it worth repeating.
===============
I remember, before most of you were born, similar arguments for and against automation in the workplace.
Substituting terminology, comments for and against, then and now, are interchangeable.
I don’t normally stoop this low in criticism, so I’ll hope it has the more authority: It should be emphasized that Michael Moore is a terrible person whose career is built on lies and should not be believed under any circumstances.
There are basically two common rhetorical arguments against foreign outsourcing:
The leftist argument: outsourcing exploits the poor in other countries (think sweatshops)
The populist argument: outsourcing takes jobs away from Americans
If Moore has only ever made the first type of argument, then, no, he’s not a hypocrite. Nobody attacks Canada for its lack of labor standards, or characterizes it as a land of sweatshops and dirt poor labor.
But, if he has made the second type of argument, then whether or not Canada has “fair” labor practices is entirely irrelevant. He’s still employing Canadians to do a job that could have been done by Americans.
I don’t feel like wasting my time right now finding out exactly what Moore has said on this issue, but based on what I know about him (e.g. Roger and Me) I would be willing to bet that he has been all over the populist argument.
-Mike
might there not be a “national defense” argument against outsourcing in certain sectors? (not saying i subscribe to it, just that i can see one)
Take for example steel. I have no doubt that china can produce better steel cheaper than america. So if outsourcing proceeds according to the market, american capacity to produce steel will diminish, and eventually die. Now it is not inconceivable that there could one day be conflict between america and china, and if god forbid it came to non – nuclear war, steel would be needed for building ships and tanks. Would china continue to provide that? I don’t think so.
What i am suggesting is that there is a value inherent in having the capacity to make (some sorts of)stuff, that the market does not take into account.
Mike. There’s also a third argument which somewhat amalgamates the two you stated. This one is the argument that countries can gain an artificial comparative advantage by allowing lower labour and environmental standards then American companies are obligated toward. In other words that jobs which Americans can do as effectively are sometimes outsourced simply because the hidden costs of employing American labour are higher.
Libertarians are obviously sympathetic to this one to the extent that we push for lower regulations across the board (though expressly opposed to it when liberals push for higher regulation across the board), but in practice the best way to encourage more convergance in regulation is to allow companies to play regulatory arbitrage so that political systems evolve accordingly. If, as liberals would have us believe, higher regulation really provides a commensurate increase in stability and productivity, then companies will thrive in higher regulated economies with the obvious knock-on effects.
If the reverse is true, then lower regulated economies will thrive, more companies will move there and the cycle will continue until the most effective balance between flexibility and regulation is found.
Of course, things never work quite this neatly in real life, but a messier, more haphazard version of the same is starting to come to life. With any luck Americans are still confident enough in your value to the global economy to embrace it. Europe, unfortunately, lost the plot decades ago and its power base has gradually eroded ever since.
Wade, you posted this while I was writing mine, so I’ll reply to it now. You’re right about that. It is one of the arguments commonly used against outsourcing particular industries (particularly steel, as you explained, and agriculture). The argument, slightly restated, is also used to support the idea that political hegemony is required to ensure stable markets, particularly for valuable commodities such as oil which the US doesn’t have enough of (hence the Cold War jostling over the Middle East and South/Central America). The counter-argument is one of emphasis, rather than rebuttal. The key reason now why China is less likely to go to war with the US than a decade ago is precisely because of the rapidly growing economic interdependancy. A decision to go to war would cripple the Chinese economy in a way which would never be fixable while America could gradually rebuild its interdependancy with India, Eastern Europe etc. and wouldn’t suffer nearly so much in the long run.
So, you’re right, there is a strategic requirement to make sure that either America or its key allies maintain a degree of industrial capacity, but equally there’s a clear political (as well as economic) advantage to trusting the Chinese with an increasing portion of the supply chain. Getting the balance right is key.
I don’t like to use the word ‘hate’. I wouldn’t want to be worthy of the Hater name, but there are some things that just make my blood boil.
Michael Moore’s mouth is one of those things.
I’ll be virtuous and won’t say I hate him, but I sure hate his mouth and his pen and just about everything he stands for.
And here I am, surrounded by Air America listeners and Michael Moore devotees, and they go on and on and on about how thought-provoking and truth-revealing he is. I’m the only one around here who disagrees, so I usually point out a couple of his lies and then just give up and shut up. I don’t think it’s wise to get riled up and political with my boss and coworkers anyway.
So I put up with it and then go home to fume and fuss at my boyfriend. . . or to you guys.
/pointless post
Anytime our government starts using the term “fair” we get screwed.
I find it “interesting” that the five posts following mine, chose NOT to consider the historical signifigance of their arguments.
If you need help, let me refer you to articles concerning assembly lines, telephones, adding machines, typewriters, diesel engines, horseless carriages, railroads, combustion engines, copier machines, etc., etc., etc.
The advent of each one came with dire predictions and resistance from the affected unions.
How did we ever survive?
That’s MY comment, now it’s your turn.
Regulations = higher cost to produce. America is regulated to the hilt. Remove half of the needless regulations and we’d be much more competitive with other countries. (I agree that some regulation is needed).
Mike. I didn’t respond to your post because I entirely agree with you and so had very little to add. Dire predictions in the face of change are a pretty standard phenomenon throughout recorded history, and Ned Ludd was predicting this kind of thing even further ago than than the examples you’ve provided. Change and uncertainty are politically destabilising, and there will always be an element of pragmatism in the way Government and corporations manage these structural changes, but sticking ones head in the sand is not a sensible long run option from anyones’ perspective.
Ms. Dani,
Are you ever right about that word!(fair) Usually when you hear it,put one hand on your wallet and run like hell!
I suppose some regulation outside of the free market is needed, but I’m personally hard-pressed to come up with examples.
It’s my guess the insurance industry would be able to do a better job of ‘regulating’ than government in almost all (if not all) instances.
If for example, the law required meat packers to carry a certain amount of liability and left it at that, consumers would be much better off.
Rocketman hits the nail on the head. While “fair” is a subjective term, when it is defined by our socialistic government handlers, it typically means “forced equality”. There is no parity, everyone has an “equal” ground, there are no accumulated accomplishments. If you work hard and make a load of money, you are “rewarded” with higher tax rates, all in the interest of “fairness”. If someone is born into a poor family, it’s “unfair”. No, it’s life. If someone is born into a shitty third world country, that’s life. But if you want to talk about “fairness”, well…let’s get back to what Balko said above: where’s the “fairness” in prohibiting companies from hiring third-world workers and paying them much much more than the mean working wage in their country?
http://www.moorelies.com
Regulations = higher cost to produce. America is regulated to the hilt. Remove half of the needless regulations and we’d be much more competitive with other countries. (I agree that some regulation is needed).
As pointed out by (who else) Radley Balko over at NRO awhile back, the states that have the worst regulatory and tax environment for businesses are the exact same states that are hemorrhaging jobs the most. Inversely, the states that are the friendliest to business, those that have the least regulatory/tax burdens, are the ones keeping the jobs.
This is no mere coincidence. Those who worry about Americans losing jobs should keep this in mind: let’s say a corporation is losing money, in part because the regulations and taxes that they pay in their state are killing them. They outsource to india, save their corporation, and all is well. Sure, some people lose their jobs, but think about it in these terms: let’s say the USG FORCED that company to keep its American workers (prohibited it from outsourcing). OK, so the corporation continues to lose money. What do corporations do when they lose money? They FIRE PEOPLE! Oh, so, either way, Americans are going to lose their jobs. Which is better: americans losing jobs to indians, or those jobs disappearing altogether? Hmmm.
It’s time we really looked at WHY these companies are outsourcing. Balko did that quite well in that article.
I loathe Moore and would likely find his opinions on this issue or any issue to be so much worthless hot air. Still I think one is being a little ridiculous to accuse him of being hypocritical about so-called outsourcing without first knowing what he has said about it.
Why does Moore get any pub at all? His opinions are worthless. Further discussion only keeps him from fading away.
He gets all the pub because (for some gawdawful reason) people want what he says to be true. They think he’s the one man who will stand up for the little people, give them a voice, reveal their plight, point out the *real* bad guys.
He’s loud, he’s self-righteous, and he says just what people want to hear.
In my opinion (for what it’s worth), he’s as bad as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. All three of them know how to maximise their own power by preying on the fears of ignorant people. Make them feel enlightened and knowledgeable, they’ll be putty in your hands and just as ignorant as ever.
Michael Moore is really fat! Just like my momma!
She is almost as big as my dadda!
He is huge and eats five pies a day!
Michael Moore — wealthism’s David Duke.
Bronwyn — I agree, the reason that many of your associates think MM is so thought-provoking is because he reinforces the fairness-fantasies they want to be true.
He is “preaching to the choir” that cherihes the same articles of faith as he appears to (even as he takes their money and lives large, in more ways than one) — and can be as intolerant as the most misguided elements within my own (evangelical) faith, and far more closed-minded than even the average Dittohead.
Mega dittoes to you Rich
Regarding the protection of defense-related industries like steel, it’s a bogus argument.
American steel manufacturing is higher now than at any point during the 80′s, when most of the existing tanks were manufactured.
http://www.zianet.com/ehusman/Freetrade.htm
With these little regional wars that we keep getting involved in, the important thing is to have large stockpiles ready to go (a “quick strike capability), not to have some huge capacity so that we can win a sustained war like WWII. If something like that happens, the most important thing is to have a nimble (i.e., relatively unregulated) economy that can shift assets around. The defense department accounts for something like 0.03% of domestic steel production, so it’s not like it presents a real burden.
http://www.freetrade.org/talkingpoints/SteelTrapKeyPoints.pdf
But looking into the future, steel and other heavy production has even less to do with defense. The next generation of tanks are going to be drastically lighter (30 tons vs. 70 tons) yet even more lethal and more survivable. They are using ceramics and active armor rather than the old passive armor or the present reactive armor schemes. Even more important is air power, which uses aluminum, plastic, and titanium, and unmanned instead of manned aircraft. Electronic sensors and information management systems mean that fewer bombs and bullets are needed to effectively eliminate targets. If you look at the tonnage of explosives required to take out a target in recent wars vs. WWII or even Viet Nam, the productivity improvement is breathtaking.
Eric
At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot, I did read some of his ‘work’ (books) out of curiosity. It was like reading some communist manifesto.
I had to wipe my boots afterwards…
EricH -
A few years ago in a MBA economics class, my professor was explaining his view of the steel tarrifs. At that time I was employed by LTV Steel, which may have been part of the reason I supported government stepping in to help us out. Unfortunately, getting tarrif info from LTV was like getting tax info from the government – get only one side of the issue.
It seems that even if a war effort required the same amount of steel that it did in WW-II, it would still be only about 25% of our total capacity today.
Suddenly, governmental “protection” of our steel industry didn’t seem like such a good idea after all…