What is the problem with globalization?

[Higus]

There is another major problem that you didn't state: Programmer type jobs alone cannot support the country. We need the combination of programmer jobs and tube sock jobs. Programmer type jobs are naturally going to be less in number anyway, than tube sock type jobs. So unless the government starts paying people a wage for sitting around the house... there will be millions of people out of work. The idea that the US can be a white collar nation, and let the 3rd world countries have all of the blue collar jobs is an impractical and ridiculous notion. Not saying that is what you are trying to say... but I've heard that theory countless times before.

The thing is that blue collar jobs are turning into white collar jobs, at least when it comes to MFG.

There is always going to be some tube sock jobs, just based off of regional needs, but @Rod1 has the gist of it. In the US, the economy, and to extent the middle class as we know it is in a state of transition. Sewing tube socks will no longer be a middle class job. Programming the machines that make tube socks will be a middle class job. So the question isn't if you can have a nation of nothing but white collar jobs, the question is will there even be a middle class in the future? And we decide that a middle class is necessary, what are the best ways to ensure that it continues?

 

[Greoric]

Once the CEO's of those companies decided to cooperate with each other, their engineers were compelled to design systems using the agreed upon standard. If this didn't happen, you'd have engineers designing dozens of different digital disc systems, none of which would be compatible with each other.

Sure. What does an acknowledgement of spontaneous order have to do with establishing a global governance?

 

[Rod1]

Sure. What does an acknowledgement of spontaneous order have to do with establishing a global governance?

As i said, there is no such thing as establishing a global governance, its just a bunch of nation states entering into treaties out of their will in order to have some standarization on their relationships.

 

[Ruprecht]

I don't think globalisation means, "the entire human species coming together and working as one".

 

[Rod1]

There is always going to be some tube sock jobs, just based off of regional needs, but @Rod1 has the gist of it. In the US, the economy, and to extent the middle class as we know it is in a state of transition. Sewing tube socks will no longer be a middle class job. Programming the machines that make tube socks will be a middle class job. So the question isn't if you can have a nation of nothing but white collar jobs, the question is will there even be a middle class in the future? And we decide that a middle class is necessary, what are the best ways to ensure that it continues?

They wont believe it, they dont believe unemployment rates are accurate, so they wont believe the fed report on industrial output.

Why trust decades old institutions when Donnie says that all jobs went to Mexico and China.

Although the left was not far behind with Bernie, but at least Bernie had a lot of good qualities.

 

[jimbob27]

Sure. What does an acknowledgement of spontaneous order have to do with establishing a global governance?

I don't know. I don't see anyone asking for global governance, or attempting to achieve it, (apart from perhaps ISIS). I see lots of people on the internet who are dead set against global governance (and I agree with them), but from what I can see it's mostly conspiracy theory stuff.

There used to be a great struggle between capitalist style globalism and communist style globalism. Potentially soviet style globalism could have resulted in world governance, with the Russians as the masters and every other country as their subordinate..... but that threat is over now. Capitalist globalism won, which mostly involves countries attempting to set up mutually beneficial agreements.

I think the problem discussing this is that "globalism" is a word that encompasses so many different things. Many are potentially very good, and others are potentially disastrous.

 

[cooks1]

Disapearance of cultures, traditions, languages and ways of living that have been existing since forever.

But this is not black or white. In the long term, globalization is inevitable, and it has some benefits but it needs to be controlled and regulated.

I feel this is a pretty accurate description of current challenges.

But I see 2 more fundamental problems with true globalization outside of this.

1) Right up to the point that globalization is literally 100% complete, it will be at the expense of some country or group of countries. Because we currently do not share technology completely. So instead of the 3rd world countries riding the tech wave with us, they are being forced to endure industrial revolutions like we went through. Which has positives and negatives for everyone.

2) The maximum potential efficiency of globalization will never be reached within the confines of capitalism. Capitalism drove efficiency more than any other system before it. But one of the pillars upon which capitalism rests is growth. And often efficiency and growth are at cross purposes. This was why planned obsolescence was built into our economic model. To take the final leap we will eventually need to transition to a resource based economy.

Some light reading. Yes, it's hokey and far fetched. And at times boring. But this simple mathematical fact of the matter is that there is enough waste in landfills all over the world right now that if it had been efficiently used, would have the whole planet, all 6 billion, living the lifestyle of millionaires.





Check out the Venus project if you ever have a few hours to burn

 

[HunterSdVa29]

it seems to some, that globalization means subverting your cultural/national values in order to accommodate others from real talk inferior cultures....

While that may not be the design of it, the need for cheap labor ultimately results in this, and hence why there's such a backlash.

 

[Jack V Savage]

it seems to some, that globalization means subverting your cultural/national values in order to accommodate others from real talk inferior cultures....

While that may not be the design of it, the need for cheap labor ultimately results in this, and hence why there's such a backlash.

Good example of what I was talking about earlier here.

This guy doesn't realize how his objections are to two entirely different, conflicting meanings of the term.

 

[esotamoc]

Among other things it creates a multinational class of elites who hold enormous sway over governments who are entirely unelected. That's not to say that there are no benifits to globalization but a reasonable amount of nationalism is a legitimate protective measure against potential abuse.

That's exactly the problem if it is undemocratic and large corporations have all the power and influence unchecked. If it is done in a democratic way to the benefit of us then I'm all for it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's exactly the problem if it is undemocratic and large corporations have all the power and influence unchecked. If it is done in a democratic way to the benefit of us then I'm all for it.

This exact problem exists with domestic companies, and oddly the same people who are currently screeching about it (as a new faction has become ascendant in the GOP) have been defending it. And if you're concerned about corporations having too much power, maybe don't vote for people who are running on giving them more power and making it harder for some people to vote.

 

[Bay Area]

How many months salary are you willing to pay for an American made iphone? You can't have your cake and eat it. If you want Americans with high paid manufacturing jobs, then what they're making needs to be priced accordingly, and it's not going to be anywhere near as cheap as stuff made by Chinese child laborers.

I want US companies to only sell to Americans, and I want US companies to only hire Americans. If we do have a trade agreement between another country, I want the US to demand that that country does not utilize 3rd world slave labor. This would take care of the high Iphone prices, because Americans would not be competing with child labor

 

[Bay Area]

There is always going to be some tube sock jobs, just based off of regional needs, but @Rod1 has the gist of it. In the US, the economy, and to extent the middle class as we know it is in a state of transition. Sewing tube socks will no longer be a middle class job. Programming the machines that make tube socks will be a middle class job. So the question isn't if you can have a nation of nothing but white collar jobs, the question is will there even be a middle class in the future? And we decide that a middle class is necessary, what are the best ways to ensure that it continues?

Its the government's job to protect the middle class IMO. It hasn't done its job...mainly because it is in the pocket of big business.

 

[ManCityFC9]

Here's my $0.02:

There isn’t anything wrong with Globalization. It generates wealth by making commodities cheaper and knowledge more valuable. If you are a developing country, it gives you access to market places that will purchase low quality good made by low tech manufacturing (i.e. tube socks, coal mining, low grade steel) for a lower cost. If you are in an advanced country, it allows your consumers to spend less on low quality goods (tube socks) and gives high knowledge industries (software programmers, advanced manufacturers, investment bankers) growing global markets to participate in. The advanced nation benefits because the cost of low tech goods decreases and the value of high tech knowledge is easier to sell.

The problem is that the wealth generated isn’t distributed equitably. The people who were making tube socks have not been able to transition into become programmers, and people who were able to become programmers have been able to thrive best by becoming more urban. That doesn’t make one group evil and the other righteous, it’s just the effects of a living in an advanced country in a globalized economy.

Going backwards doesn’t make sense (if it’s even possible), so the best thing to do would be to focus on making sure that people realize that those tube sock jobs are not coming back and to start training for the careers that will be available in the future, and preferably using the excess wealth generated by the globalist industries to subsidize that retraining. But then you have several generations of people that have been conditioned to reject anything that resembles socialist redistribution of wealth, gleefully eroded safety net programs, and are hopelessly optimistic about how dire their predicaments are.

top reply of the thread.
Well said buddy, took the words right from my thoughts.

I've always thought the gov't may need to push education reform to help supplement the current trend of globalization.
-As well as campaign finance reform; to help manage current gov't spending, by leveling the competitive playing field among companies and removing campaign donations from controlling congressmen, and subsequently controlling gov't policy

 

[panamaican]

There's nothing wrong with globalization. Some people might not like it but it's because they see it as a limitation on their perceived position in the world.

In reality, globalization is natural and, so far, has only benefited mankind. Science, technology, and agriculture crossing back and forth from East to West to New World, Africa and back. Goods and natural resources traversing the globe. These things have combined to advance mankind forward for all of history.

 

[Rod1]

I want US companies to only sell to Americans, and I want US companies to only hire Americans. If we do have a trade agreement between another country, I want the US to demand that that country does not utilize 3rd world slave labor. This would take care of the high Iphone prices, because Americans would not be competing with child labor

 

[Rod1]

Disapearance of cultures, traditions, languages and ways of living that have been existing since forever.

Care to name one culture, tradition or language that has been existing since forever?

Dead languages dont count.

 

[Philo-Publius]

I see a lot of people really against it, why? What exactly would be the problem with the entire human species coming together and working as one?

How do you merge a western culture with a culture that supports sharia law? That doesn't work.

 

[Imalive]

How do you merge a western culture with a culture that supports sharia law? That doesn't work.

Says who?

 

[Philo-Publius]

Says who?

Says logic. In this case, two cultures trying to merge would be in direct conflict with one another. One promotes freedom while the other restricts freedom.