3 ms·
None of this is what the article is about. The article, as it relates to your comment, is about imbalances in GDP growth between the developed and almost-develo
by rrggrr 9y ago
None of this is what the article is about. The article, as it relates to your comment, is about imbalances in GDP growth between the developed and almost-developed world, and how the expected upside for the developed world hasn't materialized. the non-manufacturing IP economy, as you put it, hasn't generated enough well paying jobs or enough domestic product, to offset massive export of domestic wealth, capacity and assets. If your argument is that an influx of unskilled immigrant labor and an army of college professors can correct this imbalance then I'm speechless.
- mozumder 9y ago> If your argument is that an influx of unskilled immigrant labor and an army of college professors can correct this imbalance then I'm speechless. Then try harder to formulate a response, because that's the proper argument for globalization: an influx of unskilled immigrant labor and an army of college professors is what will save the world. The article itself describes how globalization has benefitted the world, in particular, the massive reduction in of poverty in China, Korea, India, Poland, Indonesia, and Thailand after they opened up for globalization. It even says China went from 2% to 20% of the world's share of manufacturing, in line with it's share of world population. How is that a bad thing? Did you think the world was supposed to be static? That the third-world was supposed to be poor and suffering forever?