Wednesday, April 14, 2010
No More Sardines For Me
The last US sardine packaging plant, which opened in Maine in 1875, will soon close. Partly due to shrinking demand and partly due to our shrinking economy, the plant can no longer remain in business. Our thirst for imported goods from cheap labor markets is undoubtedly at fault.
In a way, we are slitting our own throats. And as a result, one-hundred and thirty American jobs will be terminated, a meager sum when contrasted with the closing of large factories in favor of shifting to offshore labor (try telling that to the families of the displaced workers). Just another sign of the times.
Now for the shocker: China and Thailand will rush in to fill the void. Only God knows what ingredients will comprise the Asian sardines. With words like melamine, mercury, lead, and other toxins floating through the airwaves and the sea, it's probably time to switch to a more trusted source for the tiny fish.
As unemployment grows, more dollars will flow to foreign nations, notably Canada and some northern European countries, for what was and should remain an American product. While I trust our Canadian and European allies not to poison us, I would strongly prefer to keep the USA label on the cans.
For us fish lovers, cod liver oil--though mostly if not entirely imported from Norway--and domestically harvested cod and salmon are good sources of omega-3 oil.
As toxic heavy metals ruin the world's oceans, few fish are safe from the poisons; hence, few fish-eating humans are safe as well. There are some clean sources of omega-3 oil, notably Carlson's Cod Liver Oil. This is the one I use on a daily basis. I'll just give up my occasional sardines. Consider this not only a personal safety measure but a boycott of Chinese goods, however weak that boycott may be.
When onshoring replaces offshoring, Americans will return to work while foreign laborers will be left to fend for themselves as we are today. Only then will our economy once again flourish. For now, the tiny sardine factory is merely an emerging part of the same malignant iceberg.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Allow me to tell you why this isn't a bad thing.
Aside from the fact that I would only eat a sardine if I was forced at gunpoint to do so....
If a business cannot survive on its merits, and by that I mean, producing a product or service that is demanded by consumers at a price they are willing to trade, then it is best for everyone that the business shut down and the labor and other resources are reallocated to other places. The economy is actually more efficient that way.
My caveat to this is that if burdensome laws and regulations increased business costs to the point of unprofitability, then it is no longer the free market at work and the closing of this plant becomes a casualty of tyranny.
If you choose not to eat foreign made sardines, you are exercising your right to do so and you're to be commended for recognizing your choice to do that.
Difster
(I removed this post because of a glaring typo and have reposted it in its corrected form.)
While I agree that the spirit of capitalism is at stake, and I am indeed in favor of capitalism, gutting an economy (or permitting it to be gutted) by those looking to save a buck and exploit slave labor in the process cannot be acceptable.
If Ford makes a better car than Nissan, I'll buy a Ford; if Toyota makes a better car than Chevy, I'll buy a Toyota. But how can these corporations be expected to remain competitive in a market where the workers are not paid a survivable wage?
America also has more regulations in place to control pollution (which is, for the most part, a good thing). China seems not to care, and its air and water reflect that, as do the lower prices of their products.
Define "survivable wage." Who mandates that wage?
Wages are a contract between a buyer and a seller. I trade my labor for a certain amount of money or other goods and services. The employer is free to reject my offer of $10,000/hour and I am free to reject their offer of $2/hour.
A person employed in Bangladesh for $3/day is better off than a person not employed at all. If actual slavery were involved, that would be a different story, but I'm not at all opposed to using cheap labor in other countries and freeing up resources here to do other things.
An economy is never gutted by people looking to save money. If everyone saved too much money, it would essentially become worthless and people would spend it in order to capitalize on the declining value (deflation). The same applies to printing too much money.
The market allocates resources efficiently so you really never have to worry about an economy being gutted. If I can buy jeans cheaper because they were produced overseas, then I have more money to spend or invest in other things, thus raising the value of the money that I have. My demand plus the demand of everyone else in an efficient market means that there will always be a supplier for a demander, provided that a price can be negotiated between the two. Government interference only raises the cost to both parties and often creates a disincentive to produce and resources are not allocated efficiently.
Post a Comment