5 ms·

> i don't think inequality can be solved by globalization. No, it's the other way'round. On the way to globalization, we need to make sure inequality stays wi

> i don't think inequality can be solved by globalization. No, it's the other way'round. On the way to globalization, we need to make sure inequality stays within reasonable levels, otherwise the whole thing will fail.

TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
Globalization is the exploitation of the lower standard of living in other areas. The reason corporations ship jobs overseas is because it's cheap. This in no way controls inequality, and in fact makes it worse.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  > Globalization is the exploitation of the lower standard of living in other areas. Yes, I am aware that some people define it that way.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- henrikschroder 10y ago
  Globalization has caused the largest transfer of wealth from rich countries to poor countries in the history of mankind, reducing inequality between countries on an unprecedented scale.
  - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
    This is true, but it has also strengthened inequality significantly within countries: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/pdf/c4.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/pdf/c4.pdf
    - henrikschroder 10y ago
      Yes, that is bad, but eliminating extreme poverty is really, really good.
      - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
        If the lower and middle classes of a country don't benefit from globalism(like the US right now), political instability and widespread disdain for globalism will result. It may be a net positive overall, but it doesn't mean much if everyone around me is losing their jobs. If globalism is that important to lift other countries out of poverty, then we need to find a more sustainable way to carry it out.
        henrikschroder 10y ago
        Well, they do benefit from globalisation, they can all afford flatscreen TVs, and a mobile device with internet access, for example. Stuff is incredibly cheap in the US, and is getting cheaper all the time. The US has a really bad track record when it comes to distributing the gains of globalisation in terms of disposable income, it is absolutely not the case that "a rising tide lifts all boats", because the gains have predominantly gone to the upper and upper-middle classes, screwing the middle and lower classes over. Other western countries have managed this much better, and redistributed the gains more evenly. That the US sucks at redistribution, is not a case against globalisation, but that unfortunately doesn't stop the uninformed populist-in-chief and his angry supporters from blaming all their woes on globalisation.
        TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
        It is true that some electronics are cheaper, but much of the lower class is becoming unable to purchase a house or afford an education. Plus there are other expenses that didn't exist in the past, such as internet and cell phone bills. Edit: The quality of life for the lower class has also gone down, since wages have gone down & both people of a family are basically required to work nowadays. How have other western countries managed this better? Can any of the methods used by those countries you speak of be used in the US?

TheAdamAndChe 10y ago

Globalization is the exploitation of the lower standard of living in other areas. The reason corporations ship jobs overseas is because it's cheap. This in no way controls inequality, and in fact makes it worse.

Florin_Andrei 10y ago
> Globalization is the exploitation of the lower standard of living in other areas. Yes, I am aware that some people define it that way.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
henrikschroder 10y ago
Globalization has caused the largest transfer of wealth from rich countries to poor countries in the history of mankind, reducing inequality between countries on an unprecedented scale.
- TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
  This is true, but it has also strengthened inequality significantly within countries: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/pdf/c4.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/pdf/c4.pdf
  - henrikschroder 10y ago
    Yes, that is bad, but eliminating extreme poverty is really, really good.
    - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
      If the lower and middle classes of a country don't benefit from globalism(like the US right now), political instability and widespread disdain for globalism will result. It may be a net positive overall, but it doesn't mean much if everyone around me is losing their jobs. If globalism is that important to lift other countries out of poverty, then we need to find a more sustainable way to carry it out.
      - henrikschroder 10y ago
        Well, they do benefit from globalisation, they can all afford flatscreen TVs, and a mobile device with internet access, for example. Stuff is incredibly cheap in the US, and is getting cheaper all the time. The US has a really bad track record when it comes to distributing the gains of globalisation in terms of disposable income, it is absolutely not the case that "a rising tide lifts all boats", because the gains have predominantly gone to the upper and upper-middle classes, screwing the middle and lower classes over. Other western countries have managed this much better, and redistributed the gains more evenly. That the US sucks at redistribution, is not a case against globalisation, but that unfortunately doesn't stop the uninformed populist-in-chief and his angry supporters from blaming all their woes on globalisation.
        TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
        It is true that some electronics are cheaper, but much of the lower class is becoming unable to purchase a house or afford an education. Plus there are other expenses that didn't exist in the past, such as internet and cell phone bills. Edit: The quality of life for the lower class has also gone down, since wages have gone down & both people of a family are basically required to work nowadays. How have other western countries managed this better? Can any of the methods used by those countries you speak of be used in the US?