3 ms·
the article raises a couple interesting points, but it utterly lacks a coherent argument (and basic editing). it starts with a tantalizing quote: "It enriches i
by clairity 9y ago
the article raises a couple interesting points, but it utterly lacks a coherent argument (and basic editing). it starts with a tantalizing quote: "It enriches industrializing poor countries, impoverishes the semi-affluent majority in rich countries, and greatly adds to the incomes of the top 1 percent on both sides who are managing the arbitrage." and then goes on to blame globalization, as if it caused the greed that led us to the situation we're in. no, globalization was merely one of many convenient mechanisms to exploit. globalization is simply beside the point.
so why does it point the finger at globalization? just like immigration, attacking people in far-flung countries spares us a painful inward reckoning. our own greed let us overlook the looting of the middle class, in the secret hopes that we could each become part of the looting class. we let capital get a decisive leg up on labor, and its greed decimated our overall prosperity.
the genius of capitalism is that it channels greed for the greater good, but we forgot that it needs to be actively channeled and molded. let's institute laws that level the playing field and guard against economic looting so that we have a functioning middle class again.
- ThomPete 9y agoAnd just like that the parents point was proven. 95% of the jobs created since 2009 are temp jobs, the actual way the us defines a job was changed under Bush and kept under Obama. The number of new jobs created have gone down decade after decade since ww2. The middle class cant come back because their jobs are those most affected by technology and globalization (service industry for instance) the only reason why there is a large group of people working with transportation is because we dont yet have automated cars. Once those get introduced the biggest industry in the US will implode. This has nothing to do with capitalism or globalization in a vacum, this is a discussion about technologys effect on globalization and capitalism and thus the job market.
- stupidhn 9y ago95% of the jobs created since 2009 are temp jobs, the actual way the us defines a job was changed under Bush and kept under Obama Do you have a source for this? 95% is hard to believe...
- hysan 9y agoFirst hit on Google[1] shows one study about it being 94% of jobs created from 2005 to 2015. So doesn't seem like a stretch so long as you agree with the "the actual way the us defines a job was changed under Bush and kept under Obama" part of the premise. Edit: More reading of other articles suggests that this is true for the 2009 to present timespan. Quote[2]: > The bottom line is: Almost all of the job gains under President Obama have been in so-called service jobs, such as those in Silicon Valley and consulting. Others are the low-end jobs, toiling in stores and restaurants. Every job described in that sentence sounds like a temp job. [1] https://qz.com/851066/almost-all-the-10-million-jobs-created-since-2005-are-temporary/ https://qz.com/851066/almost-all-the-10-million-jobs-created... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/jobs-under-obama/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/jobs-under-obam...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- flukus 9y ago> so why does it point the finger at globalization? just like immigration, attacking people in far-flung countries spares us a painful inward reckoning. The finger is pointed because there is a solution that worked for a long time, trade tariffs. There is no solution to human greed and in certain circumstances it's actually a good thing.
- mistermann 9y agoTrade deficits as well used to be avoided because the difference was settled in gold. Gosh, I wonder why that was changed and who it benefits.