3 ms·

This isn't a 40 year old trend but rather has been happening ever since weavers were replaced by machines some 200 years ago (ever since the industrial revoluti

by ricw 11y ago

This isn't a 40 year old trend but rather has been happening ever since weavers were replaced by machines some 200 years ago (ever since the industrial revolution). The trends of rationalisation, automation, economies of scale and now globalisation all have the same effect. Replacing low value labour with higher value labour. That's what competitive economies do and keeps them competitive (vs others, such as Cuba that just stay stuck in time). It's for the greater good, even if some temporarily will hit hardship. Understandably though, this isn't how people who are hit by this hardship think of globalisation..

ap22213 11y ago
I think most of us get that. But, the goal of all of this should be improvement of general well-being. And, clearly that's not happening. Sure, some people are getting crazy rich, but it's not trickling down into the general population.
- ricw 11y ago
  I disagree. In absolute terms we have never been richer. And that's really what counts. Relative richness is "just jealousy" and not a real measure of wealth. Though people do of course compare themselves through relative means..
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > In absolute terms we have never been richer. Simply not true; there was a time in this country when a middle class lifestyle worked on one income leaving one parent free to raise kids. Those times are over, the middle class has been virtually destroyed and two income families are now the norm just to get by. That's not a relative comparison, that's an absolute decrease in lifestyle. That technology has progressed making computers cheap means diddly squat.
  - chillwaves 11y ago
    Any incremental progress over time results in increased wealth, but that's a rather low bar. Should think of how much better or worse things could be, not just that they improved. Technology has been increasing, innovation has been increasing (with time). That's a very low standard of expectation.
wycx 11y ago
Globalisation is not as inevitable as you make out, and it is not at all clear it is for the greater good. What does the greater good even mean in this case? Globalisation is definitely good for the holders of capital, because they can move it wherever it gives the best return. If you study the history of free trade (See [1] as an excellent introduction), countries in the past had a lot of policy options available to them to protect and develop their economy/industries. As neoliberalism has become the dominant economic paradigm (i.e. cargo-cult) a lot of the past has been forgotten, and neoliberals will have you believe that the rich countries all got rich following neoliberal policies. This is most definitely not the case. Capital controls, tariff protection and government subsidy are vital tools for protecting infant industries and AND protecting your economy from mercantalists. It is interesting to hear from Americans in this thread, as I would describe the US approach to free trade as somewhat pragmatic. In contrast, Australia is has an extremely ideological pro-free-trade policy position. We do not subsidise agriculture, or car manufacturing, have low tariffs and almost no capital controls. This approach, amongst other policy decisions, has not left us with a robust or diverse economy. In contrast, the US fights hard in trade negotiations to protect its domestic agricultural markets, defense and intellectual property industries, whereas Australia will sign everything away for the faintest promise of maybe some possibly freer access to US sugar markets (see TPP negotiations) which will probably never happen since the US will find a way to keep us out. [1] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1032019.Bad_Samaritans http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1032019.Bad_Samaritans

by ricw 11y ago

ap22213 11y ago

I think most of us get that. But, the goal of all of this should be improvement of general well-being. And, clearly that's not happening. Sure, some people are getting crazy rich, but it's not trickling down into the general population.

ricw 11y ago
I disagree. In absolute terms we have never been richer. And that's really what counts. Relative richness is "just jealousy" and not a real measure of wealth. Though people do of course compare themselves through relative means..
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > In absolute terms we have never been richer. Simply not true; there was a time in this country when a middle class lifestyle worked on one income leaving one parent free to raise kids. Those times are over, the middle class has been virtually destroyed and two income families are now the norm just to get by. That's not a relative comparison, that's an absolute decrease in lifestyle. That technology has progressed making computers cheap means diddly squat.
- chillwaves 11y ago
  Any incremental progress over time results in increased wealth, but that's a rather low bar. Should think of how much better or worse things could be, not just that they improved. Technology has been increasing, innovation has been increasing (with time). That's a very low standard of expectation.

wycx 11y ago

Globalisation is not as inevitable as you make out, and it is not at all clear it is for the greater good. What does the greater good even mean in this case? Globalisation is definitely good for the holders of capital, because they can move it wherever it gives the best return. If you study the history of free trade (See [1] as an excellent introduction), countries in the past had a lot of policy options available to them to protect and develop their economy/industries. As neoliberalism has become the dominant economic paradigm (i.e. cargo-cult) a lot of the past has been forgotten, and neoliberals will have you believe that the rich countries all got rich following neoliberal policies. This is most definitely not the case. Capital controls, tariff protection and government subsidy are vital tools for protecting infant industries and AND protecting your economy from mercantalists. It is interesting to hear from Americans in this thread, as I would describe the US approach to free trade as somewhat pragmatic. In contrast, Australia is has an extremely ideological pro-free-trade policy position. We do not subsidise agriculture, or car manufacturing, have low tariffs and almost no capital controls. This approach, amongst other policy decisions, has not left us with a robust or diverse economy. In contrast, the US fights hard in trade negotiations to protect its domestic agricultural markets, defense and intellectual property industries, whereas Australia will sign everything away for the faintest promise of maybe some possibly freer access to US sugar markets (see TPP negotiations) which will probably never happen since the US will find a way to keep us out. [1] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1032019.Bad_Samaritans http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1032019.Bad_Samaritans