May Day in the Era of Trade Wars
Therefore, May Day should serve as a moment to view workers not merely as productivity figures. They are the foundation of a nation’s social and economic stability.
Jakarta (ANTARA) - May Day was born from demands for an eight-hour workday for workers, but today, labour issues are far more complex than just working hours.
The fate of modern workers today is not only determined by workplace relations but also by trade wars, import tariffs, logistics algorithms, and geopolitical tensions between major countries.
Since the neoliberal globalisation era in the 1990s, many believed that free trade would bring widespread prosperity. Factories were built, investments flowed, and exports increased. However, in practice, the benefits of globalisation are often not distributed evenly.
Through his work titled Globalization and Its Discontents (2002), Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz criticised globalisation, which he deemed to benefit capital owners more than worker groups. In the modern global economy, capital can move across countries very quickly, while labour lacks the same mobility and flexibility.
Therefore, whenever trade wars or economic tensions arise between major countries, workers in developing nations often become the most vulnerable party. Changes in investment direction, industrial relocations, and export slowdowns frequently first impact their lives.
As an illustration, when the trade war between the United States and China heated up a few years ago, many global companies began diversifying their production chains out of China. Some moved to Vietnam, while others entered Indonesia.
At first glance, the situation appears to be good news, with new factories and job opportunities emerging. However, global industrial relocations do not automatically equate to improved worker welfare or strengthened bargaining position for recipient countries.
In the current global economic structure, developing countries are still more often positioned as competitive low-cost production bases, while centres for research, technology, design, and strategic decision-making remain concentrated in advanced countries or global corporate headquarters.
International political economist Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) once explained the concept of core countries and peripheral countries in the world system. Core countries generally dominate technology, finance, brands, and global strategic decisions. Meanwhile, peripheral countries, which are generally developing nations, more often serve as providers of raw materials, production bases, or low-cost labour.