Globalization (thus far)

[AAFitz]

Presumably it extends to outsourcing.

However, the hue and cry on outsourcing does not come from "conservatives" (or rather, it should come from liberals).

I just feel that outsourcing is an inevitability. I'm not sure how one could prevent it.

Really? I can think of some things.

Well thats easy... for example: I can think of reasons why they wont work.

[thegreekdog]

Presumably it extends to outsourcing.

However, the hue and cry on outsourcing does not come from "conservatives" (or rather, it should come from liberals).

I just feel that outsourcing is an inevitability. I'm not sure how one could prevent it.

Really? I can think of some things.

Well thats easy... for example: I can think of reasons why they wont work.

I can think of reasons why they WILL work. So there!

Anyway, sorry frigidus, I actually got pulled into a conference call and thus couldn't create a list.

I would think the government could disincentivize companies outsourcing in any number of ways - including tax benefits for companies that keep jobs here and tax burdens on companies that ship jobs overseas. Barring that, the government could require that US companies have a certain percentage of jobs in the US. I don't think any of these things will happen (our government being strongly influenced by corporations after all).

Barring these things, US workers could take less wages/salaries for the same jobs. I don't think that this will happen either (or at least, won't happen in time to save US industry).

[Frigidus]

Anyway, sorry frigidus, I actually got pulled into a conference call and thus couldn't create a list.

No worries, life trumps internet debate.

I would think the government could disincentivize companies outsourcing in any number of ways - including tax benefits for companies that keep jobs here and tax burdens on companies that ship jobs overseas. Barring that, the government could require that US companies have a certain percentage of jobs in the US. I don't think any of these things will happen (our government being strongly influenced by corporations after all).

Barring these things, US workers could take less wages/salaries for the same jobs. I don't think that this will happen either (or at least, won't happen in time to save US industry).

I think that no matter what is done, outside of truly obscene taxation (I'm not against it, but realistically it wouldn't make it through legislation) the money saved through extremely cheap overseas labor would still be worth the losses. As you said, US workers would have to accept lower wages, which really defeats the purpose in the first place.

[thegreekdog]

I would agree that US workers accepting lower wages would defeat the purpose, except if such workers didn't have jobs, which I think is the problem inherent in outsourcing. I think eventually outsourcing will make its way into a lot of job sectors, and then we may have to take some action.

[got tonkaed]

I think that while incentivizing or disincentivizing are reasonable stop-gap solutions, they clearly do not address the issue at hand in too much depth. Sourcing talent is simply not something that has to be done with much regard to geographic borders in the short to mid term future. Considering the idea that typically what seems to occur is an area gets logistically opened up, industry arrives (granted theres quite a mixed bag in terms of what type of industry your going to get), and then people start to step back and localize the means to achieve more locally determined ends. There are wide ranges of skill sets that simply need to be upgraded in terms of the technology used (think for instance visual media) that will only make the sourcing issue "worse" for already advanced countries.

In terms of political programs, many advanced nations would probably do well to avoid too much disincentivizing as it just provides an impetus for the training on the other end to occur faster. It would be nice to see some serious effort put into the "greening of the economy" as despite the environmental advantages, there are pretty sizeable savings in efficiency that can eat into some of those bottom line losses as long as we have an advantage. Certainly there is a lot of consulting than can be done from more advanced countries, but in terms of industrial output, without some type of shift or technological breakthrough, its not really something thats going to change all that much.

[bedub1]

I took a globalization class in college, because it seemed to be the lesser of the evils of the classes required to fulfill some stupid requirement. It was a horrible class, about pretty much nothing. I had to give a presentation on it, so I gave a presentation on globalization and the internet. Basically, the day of the project presentation I printed up a bunch of websites that were related to globalization or talking about it or had forums and messages boards about it. Then I said "See, the internet plays a roll in globalization too". I think I barely passed the class. I told the prof I had been studying the websites for some time, and only printed them on the last day so they would reflect the most up to date materials, but that was total bullshit.

Basically, globalization is this.

"The world is getting smaller because it's easier for people across the globe to communicate and travel".

Now is it a good thing or a bad thing? Um...I think it's just a thing. Good or bad is so subjective that it makes the entire discussion, well, a complete waste of time, just like that class.

So now you can all bow down to me, as I am the CC expert on Globalization, as I've actually taken a class about it.

[Simon Viavant]

for me the topic is too broad to discuss in the way that you would like without additional clarification. It is what i have asked for in a few previous posts, yet have not seen so far. And to be fair in your initial post you did give a point of view, but you did not support it.

Its one thing to make a claim, it is another though if you make a claim that is contradicted by what you previously said.

I haven't seen anything to respond to yet, other than nobody can look at the result thus far and make a decision. I Think Globalization thus far has brought more negatives than positives

Ok then, what would be your arguments against globalization?




It looks like the aspect people have been talking about here is free trade vs. protectionism. Basically what I have to say to those people is:
Why do you care more about a total stranger in San Fransisco more than a total stranger in Hong Kong?

[Phatscotty]

use your own understanding of it and make a decision.

[Simon Viavant]

Ok never mind keep trolling

[Phatscotty]

Ok never mind keep trolling

I know you are but what am I?

[spurgistan]

Basically, globalization is this.

"The world is getting smaller because it's easier for people across the globe to communicate and travel".

Now is it a good thing or a bad thing? Um...I think it's just a thing. Good or bad is so subjective that it makes the entire discussion, well, a complete waste of time, just like that class.

So now you can all bow down to me, as I am the CC expert on Globalization, as I've actually taken a class about it.

Given that my major is based on figuring out how to make globalization work for people and not corporations, right about here is where I serve you a steaming glass of STFU.

Essentially, yeah, the world is getting smaller at a rate unprecedented in human history. Dramatically lowered costs for international communications and shipping mean that it's about as easy for me to work with somebody in Delhi as down the street. And that's groovy. If some guy in Delhi can do a better job than the guy down the street (or me), well, so be it. Societies that attempt to shut themselves off from the world fail. However (and I'm assuming that this thread doesn't involve social globalization, and if not, well, that's what it's going to be about) the problem comes from the lack of a level playing field. One of the nice things about the USA (there are lots) is that workers have certain levels of protection. Unions and environmental organizations have benefited from our relatively open government in ways that people in developing nations by and large have not. Therefore, we have corporations who make profits off moving from more heavily regulated areas to the relative Wild Wild West of the developing world in order to profit from the difference between heavily regulated (for good) and non-regulated (for evil) Therein lies the flaws in economic globalization, summarized. But what do I know.

[whitestazn88]

i don't even know what to say in this thread...

positives: international boobies to look at

negatives: we have to hear about poor people

i guess thats all i got for now.

[thegreekdog]

I believe some of us discussed this in another thread, but the unionization of workers in nations like China (oh, the irony) and India would provide some semblance of balance between workers there and workers in the US.

[bedub1]

Basically, globalization is this.

"The world is getting smaller because it's easier for people across the globe to communicate and travel".

Now is it a good thing or a bad thing? Um...I think it's just a thing. Good or bad is so subjective that it makes the entire discussion, well, a complete waste of time, just like that class.

So now you can all bow down to me, as I am the CC expert on Globalization, as I've actually taken a class about it.

Given that my major is based on figuring out how to make globalization work for people and not corporations, right about here is where I serve you a steaming glass of STFU.

Essentially, yeah, the world is getting smaller at a rate unprecedented in human history. Dramatically lowered costs for international communications and shipping mean that it's about as easy for me to work with somebody in Delhi as down the street. And that's groovy. If some guy in Delhi can do a better job than the guy down the street (or me), well, so be it. Societies that attempt to shut themselves off from the world fail. However (and I'm assuming that this thread doesn't involve social globalization, and if not, well, that's what it's going to be about) the problem comes from the lack of a level playing field. One of the nice things about the USA (there are lots) is that workers have certain levels of protection. Unions and environmental organizations have benefited from our relatively open government in ways that people in developing nations by and large have not. Therefore, we have corporations who make profits off moving from more heavily regulated areas to the relative Wild Wild West of the developing world in order to profit from the difference between heavily regulated (for good) and non-regulated (for evil) Therein lies the flaws in economic globalization, summarized. But what do I know.

why would you serve me a glass of stfu if it appears we agree?

[AAFitz]

Basically, globalization is this.

"The world is getting smaller because it's easier for people across the globe to communicate and travel".

Now is it a good thing or a bad thing? Um...I think it's just a thing. Good or bad is so subjective that it makes the entire discussion, well, a complete waste of time, just like that class.

So now you can all bow down to me, as I am the CC expert on Globalization, as I've actually taken a class about it.

Given that my major is based on figuring out how to make globalization work for people and not corporations, right about here is where I serve you a steaming glass of STFU.

Essentially, yeah, the world is getting smaller at a rate unprecedented in human history. Dramatically lowered costs for international communications and shipping mean that it's about as easy for me to work with somebody in Delhi as down the street. And that's groovy. If some guy in Delhi can do a better job than the guy down the street (or me), well, so be it. Societies that attempt to shut themselves off from the world fail. However (and I'm assuming that this thread doesn't involve social globalization, and if not, well, that's what it's going to be about) the problem comes from the lack of a level playing field. One of the nice things about the USA (there are lots) is that workers have certain levels of protection. Unions and environmental organizations have benefited from our relatively open government in ways that people in developing nations by and large have not. Therefore, we have corporations who make profits off moving from more heavily regulated areas to the relative Wild Wild West of the developing world in order to profit from the difference between heavily regulated (for good) and non-regulated (for evil) Therein lies the flaws in economic globalization, summarized. But what do I know.

why would you serve me a glass of stfu if it appears we agree?

Well it seems the STFU is because he is taking a whole major on the subject, while you only took one class. Of course, the fact that his major is globalization and essentially about helping people work together to resolve issues, work better together, and improve efficiency, and eventually help the people most..I do find it odd that he would use the STFU in his first sentence. Hopefully, his major will eventually actually teach him how to have a more civilized discussion with people even if they disagree, or are seemingly less educated. It might come in handy at some point.

Globalization 301: The dangers of arrogance, being argumentative, and being offensive in negotiations when trying to work with different nations their people, and corporations in an effort to create the best economic environment for those people.

[AAFitz]

I believe some of us discussed this in another thread, but the unionization of workers in nations like China (oh, the irony) and India would provide some semblance of balance between workers there and workers in the US.

Lets hope that one day becomes a reality. Unions get a bad rap sometimes in the US now, because they took advantage of their power, and have efficiency issues to say the least...but many forget that without them, the middle class may never have been born, or able to flourish. The fact that it once again seems threatened is another story all together.

[thegreekdog]

I believe some of us discussed this in another thread, but the unionization of workers in nations like China (oh, the irony) and India would provide some semblance of balance between workers there and workers in the US.

Lets hope that one day becomes a reality. Unions get a bad rap sometimes in the US now, because they took advantage of their power, and have efficiency issues to say the least...but many forget that without them, the middle class may never have been born, or able to flourish. The fact that it once again seems threatened is another story all together.

Unions were (and in some cases continue to be) very valuable to the average American. I think unions in other countries would also be very valuable to us.

[Phatscotty]

...

[Phatscotty]

Basically, globalization is this.

"The world is getting smaller because it's easier for people across the globe to communicate and travel".

Now is it a good thing or a bad thing? Um...I think it's just a thing. Good or bad is so subjective that it makes the entire discussion, well, a complete waste of time, just like that class.

So now you can all bow down to me, as I am the CC expert on Globalization, as I've actually taken a class about it.

Given that my major is based on figuring out how to make globalization work for people and not corporations, right about here is where I serve you a steaming glass of STFU.

Essentially, yeah, the world is getting smaller at a rate unprecedented in human history. Dramatically lowered costs for international communications and shipping mean that it's about as easy for me to work with somebody in Delhi as down the street. And that's groovy. If some guy in Delhi can do a better job than the guy down the street (or me), well, so be it. Societies that attempt to shut themselves off from the world fail. However (and I'm assuming that this thread doesn't involve social globalization, and if not, well, that's what it's going to be about) the problem comes from the lack of a level playing field. One of the nice things about the USA (there are lots) is that workers have certain levels of protection. Unions and environmental organizations have benefited from our relatively open government in ways that people in developing nations by and large have not. Therefore, we have corporations who make profits off moving from more heavily regulated areas to the relative Wild Wild West of the developing world in order to profit from the difference between heavily regulated (for good) and non-regulated (for evil) Therein lies the flaws in economic globalization, summarized. But what do I know.

I don't disagree that the issues that you brought up are the valid issue or most of them. I will differ in spades on your spin on all of them. In fact, I suspect a set up. this is too easy. I'm calling you out first to prove your credentials. I'm calling Bullshit. In all fairness, simply becuase I will not be shocked if there is actually an accredited university or CC that teaches that crap, however, I must opine you need a refund. And not on the basis that simple minded and hardly educated diatribe on globalization of a specialized "socialist agenda" field, but on the basis that if you actually beleived any of that crap, you would not have paid a penny for your education on principal

[spurgistan]

why would you serve me a glass of stfu if it appears we agree?

Fair enough. The ability of me to respect opposing viewpoints (or, perhaps, perceived opposition in this case) takes a huge nosedive after about 1 am. Especially on Mondays. Mondays are for drinking. I'll respond more later.

[thegreekdog]

why would you serve me a glass of stfu if it appears we agree?

Fair enough. The ability of me to respect opposing viewpoints (or, perhaps, perceived opposition in this case) takes a huge nosedive after about 1 am. Especially on Mondays. Mondays are for drinking. I'll respond more later.

When I was in college I drank every day except Monday. Weird.

[Simon Viavant]

For people who want to stop outsourcing: outsourcing doesn't hurt the economy.

You buy a $12 american made teddy bear for your kid.

Let's say you bought a $3 teddy bear made in china. That's $9 you spend at another store, that store profits and hires more people, those people have money to spend, etc, etc. And China also benefits. I know some people are going to say that it takes money out of the american economy, which is true, but it still makes the average person's life better (see scenario above).
To summarize it very briefly.

[Phatscotty]

For people who want to stop outsourcing: outsourcing doesn't hurt the economy.

You buy a $12 american made teddy bear for your kid.

Let's say you bought a $3 teddy bear made in china. That's $9 you spend at another store, that store profits and hires more people, those people have money to spend, etc, etc. And China also benefits. I know some people are going to say that it takes money out of the american economy, which is true, but it still makes the average person's life better (see scenario above).
To summarize it very briefly.

way too simplistic. trading a source of job creation for a few cheaper widgets does not end well for the one with "can i help you" jobs. not to mention insane. I detect you are one of those people who feel "so what the deficit is 12 trillion dollars. we NEED 2 more trillion NOW!"

[bedub1]

I was going to post a great reply to this, but I've decided i'm lazy and would rather outsource it. I'll let you know when the "great reply" has been completed. Thank you for your patience.

[Simon Viavant]

A great reply to me or phatty?
If it's the latter, hold off.