Why is globalization inevitable?

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But in the meantime globalization hurts the american worker.

[/ QUOTE ]

My impression from reading some months ago, is that this very well may not be true: rather, it hurts *some* American workers and *helps* some other American workers. I recall reading that the net amount of jobs we get outsourced to us, from other countries, exceeds the number of jobs we outsource to other countries. If that's the case then globalization is actually helping American workers overall--just not in certain niches.

Anyway you might want to do a little checking up on this before you jump on the bandwagon and presume that we are losing *net* jobs because of it.

Alternatively, if you are arguing primarily that it hurts only the rather unskilled workers, well, that is sort of like like saying: welcome to the 21st century. Times change, and some old skills are less needed or no longer needed. Change has always been a price of progress. Maybe it is time for some people to retrain, or to further their educations.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not very easy to say this to someone who has done the same work for 40 years and now finds himself without a job. Clearly, if this guys job moves to another country, free trade is not benefiting him.

What is the argument here? I don't see anyone arguing the points that in the last 20 years, the upward progression of middle class income (most americans) has basically reached a stand still. Does anyone have proof otherwise?

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
As changes happen there are winners and losers. In the globalization process the big losers have been those workers who have been displaced out of their jobs -- and these are almost all American workers, some of whom have little prospects for decent jobs due to education, age, ability, or even the ability to get beyond their loss.

In globalization the big winners have been corporate stock holders and insiders and entrepreneurs around the world who have been able to understand the change and take advantage of it for themselves. The other winners has been the overseas middle class, specially in parts of Asia, which have benefited from, relatively, high paying jobs becoming available.

While over time, it *may* be that American has not lost net jobs. For those impacted the impact has been huge.

[ QUOTE ]
I recall reading that the net amount of jobs we get outsourced to us, from other countries, exceeds the number of jobs we outsource to other countries.

[/ QUOTE ]


I cant imagine this to be true. But perhaps it so.

The net impact of globalization over time is to bing everyone in the world to a similar standard of living, IMO. Globally a good thing, locally it means that in a couple of decades, the Indian middle class witll have the same standard of living (as defined by material things) as the American standard of living. Lets hope they dont leave us in the dust though. My IFN investment has done extremely well, thank you India.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if the net loser here is the average american, why did our government so actively embrace it?

Answer of course, our government is pwned by the big corporations, who are the real american winners in globalization.

[ACPlayer]

It is not a given that the American worker as a whole is the loser (although there is a strong case that can be made to support this), it is however indisputable that the losers are those American workers who are let go and unable to find jobs for whatever reason.

So, when a call center closes in small town Idaho, the workers in that call center who worked for say Dell Computer are losers. Small town Idaho workers likely will have trouble finding similar jobs. Some may not be able to retrain, some may not be able to move etc.

It is also indisputable that the Management and shareholders of Dell are likely winners in this transaction and it is indisputable that the guys hired in India to do the job are winners in this deal.

And yes, our government is not by or for the people it is by and for the corporation -- more and more everyday.

[laserboy]

US consumers "benefit" in the way of cheaper goods and services. Whether trading jobs and industries for cheaper goods and services is a net benefit in the long run is up for debate.

Foreign workers benefit in the way of high paying jobs.

And the corporations are definitely not forcing this on the American public. The American public demands it by demanding goods and services at the lowest possible prices. The corporations are giving the American public just what they want. It is the the natural byproduct of capitalism.

[laserboy]

[ QUOTE ]

What about every other type of worker in western societies? How can they compete? It sounds like a losing situation- if the workers in a 3rd world country is paid less, and that country will let the company run it's businesses without giving a whit about environmental protection, how can they compete?

[/ QUOTE ]

What reason is there for a corporation to keep a certain job in the US when it could be done equally well somewhere else for a fraction of the cost? For a CEO to keep these kinds of jobs in the US would be a fiduciary irresponsibility.

If the US wants to keep jobs here, they need to start producing goods and services that are competitive on the global marketplace.

Look at Japan. Japan maintains a massive surplus with China, despite the fact that they have one of the highest costs of living in the world and have no natural resources. Of course, unlike the US, they have a highly educated workforce and acutally manufacture goods that people in other parts of the world want to buy.

[BadBoyBenny]

It's not like all of the cost savings goes to the business's margins. I can buy cheaper Dells because their costs are lower.Also, because the company I work with saves money on the thousands of Dell workstations and laptops they may be able to hire someone else.

[MMMMMM]

hetron, I'm just saying don't assume that globalization is hurting American workers in net. Get some real data of jobs lost VERSUS jobs gained (by America getting jobs outsourced to us from other countries) before forming a solid opinion.

Also, as Bad Boy Benny mentions, don't forget the benefits of cheaper goods/services to the American consumer (who is also the American worker).

[ACPlayer]

.

[coopersmydog]

[/ QUOTE ]

What reason is there for a corporation to keep a certain job in the US when it could be done equally well somewhere else for a fraction of the cost? For a CEO to keep these kinds of jobs in the US would be a fiduciary irresponsibility.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that companies have a responsibility to the bottom line, but they also have a responsibility to the society where they do business. To simply say that a company should outsource labor because it's cheaper is simply untrue. It is only one part of the equation.

My $.02

[11t]

Have you read very much Ayn Rand?