A theory that may explain school privatization, charter schools, etc.

[Baobab]

6. Temporary tactic used to establish the service sector as covered by GATS, TISA, TPP rules

Last edited Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:21 PM - Edit history (1)

leveymg, I have read something about exactly that issue recently, I will try to find it.

basically, I think that the issues that will apply will be much less onerous - as they already likely are for some treaty based visas.

What i would do is use the phrase "no more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service" thats a phrase that may lead you - with the other domain specific phrases yu mentioned, to more information. I think that they likely will have to expedite them by some time limit, and that fees would likely be minimal compared to the huge amounts of money saved, so they are unlikely to be more than a tiny speed bump on the road to progressive liberalisation, - they wouldn't work so very very hard- forming multiple international organizions, bringing thousands of loyyists and government officials from all around the world together in expensive hotels in different cities, etc, they wouldt spend 20 years (in the case of WTO) or 10 years in the case of TiSA on something and let some little thing like that impede it.

Also, I wouldnt look to the small business aspect of charter schools now to be proof of anything about TISA or GATS or their long term intentions with progressive liberalisation.. I think its mostly about the economics - and their claims that its more efficient..

Also, for it to be a friendly neighborhood thing at the beginning (and especially the selling it as a way to improve education for minorities- the exact opposite of its likely long term effects) If you were them, wouldn't you do that too, since the ONLY condition that needs to be satisfied to effectuate the breakup of public education at the beginning is simply that a significant number of schools be private? (In theory it says just one but in a practical sense, it likely would have to be far more - at least one or two percent- to prevent a defense of public K12 education as "service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers" saying that the few number of private K12 schools was an anomaly of some kind.) See the discussions in the EU about this (finally)

I think that the huge number of positions in K12 education makes it one of the main jewels in the crown of potentially privatized and globalized service sectors that would likely be almost an essential target for them. Nursing too.

And of course for neoliberals, preventing any entertainment of the idea of public heatlh care, god forbid, replacing tiered health insurance is job #1.

There is a very large body of writing at WTO on the subject of disciplines on domestic regulation which I could point you to. I know that a number of issues have been debated extensively.. Wages seem to have been discussed a lot and be controversial. the accountancy sector seems to have been a sort of test case for the skiled professions which other professions have been instructed to examine for ways to apply the same principles to their own profession's domestic regulation. Including law, which I find kind of interesting. Also a bit bizarre. because the wage picture is so unpredictable as we move into an increasingly work scarce future dominated by AI in many areas.

It seems as if some of the service supplying countries largely don't want wage parity requirements, I think they see them as a way the developing countries hope to weasel out of their promises. And its understandable and in fact may be true.

Thats why I get the feeling that the sudden discussion about minimum wages now, after decades of ignoring the issue is risky on the part of the US because it could result in the WTO or a similar body (RGFS or the proposed WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement on Services) claiming that we were raising it in anticipation of the agreement - to frustrate the goals of the agreement which as one discovers no domestic regulation is permitted unless it is compatible with the goals of the agreements. It seems that they are deliberately waving a red flag in front a a bull, as it is likely to be seen as an attempt to create a trade barrier and they could force us to drop it. (our minimum wage laws)

Nothing would be a shot in the arm for education quite like that, eh?

They will of course point out that many European countries that have no minimum wages- Denmark, for example has no minimum wage. Of course, Danes are hardly poor and they have cradle to grave free education and health care. The US military budget - both current and past wars is around 45% of US spending, though, would have to be sacrificed if we did not liberalise services, we could easily afford public health care and education if we reduced that without opening the country to $5 a day high skill laborers. (its not clear if US wage laws apply to L1 visa holders at all, having never heard that they did apply to L1, I have to assume they don't, at least now) .

Actually, public health care and education are cheaper than the alternatives unless efforts are made to do them badly - which in both cases arguably makes them more expensive, in the case of healthcare, obviously delaying or postponing health care makes it ultimately less successful and more expensive and in the case of education, inferior education is a waste of money, as the skills bar to employment is rising very rapidly.

coming with the knowledge that whatever the minimum wage is now could be carved in stone by trade deals and remain the same until mid century which is when we're expected to have self aware machines and that will likely mean that work that remains will be extremely scarce and pay very little if anything at all, in fact I think that whatever work that remains will be reclassified as education and the worker wil have to pay for it (I dont know if non-governmental provision of free education will run into problems with the trade deals, as far as I know that specific kind of restrictions currently mostly apply to entities that receive some public money only. But I am hardly an expert, so really I dont know. the rationale is that giving a potential customer something is an act that devalues the market so its being framed as something a government should not do to businesses. instead, they should do something that respects the value of money. For example, instead of providing health care to everybody, means testing it and providing it only to those who have become destitute so there is no chance that they would be stealing a potential customer)