Nothing is 'fair' about trade with Third World countries

Nothing is 'fair' about trade with Third World countries
EDITOR:
Fair trade. We have been told by our politicians and economists that it will help the American consumer. But is what we have now really fair?
Almost 70 years ago, in response to the debilitating poverty of many, our government instituted the Social Security system that provides financial help for retirees and those who are disabled and their families. Recognizing the need to provide workers a living wage, our elected representatives rightly legislated a minimum wage that employers must pay their employees. Since our government provides no universal health insurance, most employers provide, at ever increasing cost, some level of medical insurance for their employees. Additional legislation requires employers to pay for Worker's Compensation insurance to provide financially for those injured at work.
Because some unscrupulous business owners ignored the safety of their workers, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was created to establish and enforce regulations that force companies to provide safeguards to ensure their employees work in an environment that is physically safe and free from toxins. The Environmental Protection Agency was established to force companies to invest in means to decrease and/or eliminate the rampant poisoning of our atmosphere and our water.
Most will agree that these are all humane restrictions on unbridled capitalism. However, companies operating in foreign countries are not saddled with the enormous costs of these requirements. The "fair trade" proponents ignore that Third World countries blatantly poison our environment, lack concern for their workers and see only lower prices. To their shame, many U.S. companies saw these poverty wages and lack of safety and environmental restrictions as a means of achieving dramatically increased profits. Instead of using their influence to pressure politicians to provide financial incentives and tariffs where necessary to provide a more level playing field with countries who require companies to provide none of the above safeguards and benefits, many just packed up their plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. and moved to Mexico or China. This resulted in an immediate, dramatic increase in their bottom lines. But this windfall may prove to be a short-lived phenomenon.
High-paying manufacturing jobs in the U.S. are now being replaced by low-paying service jobs. Who will be able to afford to buy the remaining goods whose manufacture still drives our economy? People earning $6.50 an hour at McDonald's or Burger King cannot afford $30,000 cars. Those consumers addicted to Wal-Mart's low prices for foreign made goods as well as those companies whose patriotism is defined only by their profit margins for the current quarter better wake up and realize that our very standard of living is in jeopardy because of their shortsightedness.
ROBERT F. MOLLIC
Liberty Township
President's action on tariffsis overdue, showed courage
EDITOR:
President Bush is to be commended for his courage to withdraw the tariffs on imported steel to the United States. It is high time to deliver the message to big steel management and the rank and file that the World Trade Organization, and the small manufacturing enterprises in the United States, will not stand for their continuing practice of mismanagement and greed.
The president will soon learn at the voting booth that the number of small manufacturing employees, taxpayers and businessmen, who will benefit from tariff rescinding, will far outnumber the lethargic and apathetic Steelworkers of America and its management.
The thinking of the rank and file at the bargaining table of "Me! Me!" and screw the rest has come home to roost. The crisis in prescription drugs and the health care industry is a direct result of steel management's refusal to stand up to demands by labor. President Bush has told basic steel and the $11 billion legacy deficit: "The buck stops here."
THADDEUS M. PRICE
Warren