Solution to jobs and manufacturing being lost to cheap labor over seas.

Pro did not provide a resolution. I think it is: Resolved: Countries wishing to sell to the U.S. should be required to have all of the regulatory baggage that US-based businesses have to follow here. Pro's proposal would effectively end all imports into the United States, including goods critical to the well-being of the nation. At the same time, it would severely damage the economies of emerging nations, severely damaging the health and well-being of impoverished people around the world. 1. Pro specifically includes "lawyers and law [suits] that go with them" The US system of lawsuits is unique in the world. In all other countries, the loser of a lawsuit has to pay all the legal costs of the winning party. That feature of other legal systems provides a disincentive to sue unless the aggrieved party is fairly sure of winning. Consequently, no country would currently be qualified to trade with the U.S. and all imports would be halted immediately. Few countries have nearly enough lawyers to support the US system even if they wanted to, which, of course, they would not. The U.S. has one lawyer per 265 citizens. Brazil is second in the world with one for every 326. http://wiki.answers.com... The numbers drop quickly after the top few most-lawyered countries, "Depending on who you count as being the equivalent of a lawyer, Japan has either one-third or one-twentieth the number of lawyers that we have in the USA." http://blogs.law.harvard.edu..., if any, countries would choose to devote the resources necessary to support a large number of lawyers whose effect is to lower productivity. Even if they chose, training all the new lawyers and expanding the court systems would take many years, during which time the U.S. would have no imports. 2. As a matter of national independence, few countries would allow the US to define their legal system, so few would be able to pass the enabling legislation through their legislatures. Dictatorial regimes would never allow the U.S. to dictate workers rights. Therefore, virtually all imports to the U.S. would cease. 3. The U.S. has many laws preventing discrimination in em[ployment based on race or gender. There is no possibility that the Muslim world would pass laws requiring women to be hired and empowered to sue for sexual harassment. It is only slightly more likely that Russia, Mexico, Nigeria, or other key oil-producing nations from which the U.S. buys would comply. Therefore, nearly all oil imports would end immediately, causing economic disaster in the U.S. 4. The United States is the largest exporting country in the world. De facto refusal to accept foreign goods as imports would certainly induce retaliatory trade barriers. Consequently, large numbers of jobs would be lost in the U.S. as foreign trade collapses. 5. "Quality" means suitability to purpose; a quality product is one that serves the needs of the purchaser. Suppose you need a bucket to wash your car. Would you be better off being able to buy a $3 bucket imported from China or only being able to buy a "high quality" stainless steel bucket costing $100? The expensive bucket is no better for the task of washing a car, so paying extra is a complete waste. Pro's concept is that the U.S. would be better off if low cost goods were eliminated from society. Society would in fact be much worse off, because people with limited means could not afford to buy the things they need. 6. Labor costs are low in poorer countries, but other aspects of doing business overseas are high. Poor countries lack infrastructure, so much larger sums must be invested to provide electric power, communications, and transportation. For example, roads may wash out so warehouse facilities must be built to buffer supplies, and extra inventory costs are accrued. The costs of negotiating foreign contracts and supervising the work is high, because US managers must spend a lot of time traveling. The book "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" by liberal author Thomas Friedman gives both examples and data for the high costs. If Pro's proposal were adopted, high labor costs would be added to the high infrastructure and management costs, making poor countries completely unable to compete. The result would be economic disaster for poor countries. Low wages are far superior to total loss of income. The alternative is subsistence farming in overpopulated countries, which spells death to many. The governments of poor countries recognize this situation and uniformly oppose the requirements that Pro advocates. 7. Pro's objective is to save manufacturing jobs in the U.S. That is a mistaken objective. In 1900, agriculture employed over 90% of the US population. Now only 4% of the population is employed in agriculture, but much more food is produced. since WWII, the workforce in manufacturing has declined from about 40% to about 20%, but four times as many goods are produced [Friedman, op cit]. The US is moving towards a service and information based economy. The purpose of expanding education is not to prepare people for manufacturing jobs, but rather to enable moving beyond a manufacturing economy. The US would not have benefited from strong measures to preserve all the 1900 agricultural jobs, and it would not now benefit from artificially propping up non-competitive manufacturing industries. There will always be manufacturing, and manufacturing output will rise, but it will do so through automation, not labor. Making products more expensive, as Pro suggests, will serve to hasten automation and thereby increase job losses. For all these reasons, the resolution should be defeated.