Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
And, it's my understanding that the Governator is stepping up enforcement of labor laws so that businesses that obey laws on hours worked, minimum wage, working conditions etc. aren't at a disadvantage relative to businesses that don't obey these laws. This seems, to me, directly comparable to wanting the CAFTA countries to have at least some kind of labor/environmental laws, so that they aren't at a relative advantage above and beyond the lower cost of living or whatever. I don't get why you think this is not at all important.
|
What, I didn't do your dirty work for you? Maybe it's because your analogy is less than apt.
If California has laws, they need to be enforced. Stepping up enforcement means that there won't be cheaters who get away with it, reducing the efficacy of those laws and the respect for them. Seems pretty straightforward--laws should be enforced, because they exist and, in some cases, because not doing so disadvantages those who play by the rules, which is perverse.
Other countries have made a decision on their laws, or lack thereof, on certain issues. That's a legitimate choice that probably reflects, among other things, the relevant circumstances there. But there's not an issue that they aren't enforcing those laws, it's just that those laws are weak. But why are we in a position, given principles of sovereignty, to tell them what to do? Sure, it makes it hard to "compete" with them in certain respects, but that's because their gov't has made a different balancing of interests. Very different from California deciding to enforce the laws it already decided had value.
