42 ms·

Wait what? So because there are even poorer people on the other sides of the ponds, some of which might actually benefit in some tangential way from globalism,

Wait what? So because there are even poorer people on the other sides of the ponds, some of which might actually benefit in some tangential way from globalism, it's OK for the 0.01 % to rob their closest neighbours blind?

golergka 9y ago
> to rob That's a pretty strong claim you have here. Can you back it up? As far as I see, the 'closest neighbours' are in the ditch because they now compete with workers from other continents, and turns out that these workers are ready to do the same work for less. If I used to pay you money for your work, but then found someone else that would do that for half a price, I'm not robbing you. If anything, it's you who's been robbing the other dude before I started working with him.
- sharemywin 9y ago
  You make it sound like most people that make those decisions have a choice with outsourcing. If you don't lead the project to outsource they'll find someone that will. And if leadership won't make the decision the company you supply will find a competitor. and if you're a fortune 500 company then the bad quarterly results will get you replaced.
  - golergka 9y ago
    > You make it sound like most people that make those decisions have a choice with outsourcing. Depends on your definition of "choice" and what "free will" is. In the definitions that I'm using, you always have a choice to stand on "high moral ground" (as you perceive it), lose money and in the end destroy your company. > And if leadership won't make the decision the company you supply will find a competitor. and if you're a fortune 500 company then the bad quarterly results will get you replaced. And if you follow the chain of cause and effect to the logical conclusion, you will see the same middle american, shopping in Walmart, searching for cheaper goods without any concern over whether they were produced in China or America. Companies and other large organizations like that cannot be moral or immoral, because they just serve as proxy for collective decisions and desires of other people - their shareholders and customers. And their shareholders and customers are usually the same usual american people, who want their pension savings to grow and buy things for cheap.
- jacobush 9y ago
  Call me old-fashioned but I think it's wrong when the powers that be deceive, manipulate and strong-arm the local worker to give what they owned, personally or collectively. Why is the elite's right to ownership less sacred than the common citizen's? "You", in your example, can only buy these services because you could influence the State to wield its power in your best interest. Wagging the dog and all that...
  - golergka 9y ago
    > deceive, manipulate and strong-arm the local worker Can you back this claim up, please? > to give what they owned, personally or collectively Who is "they" here? Also, what are you talking about? > Why is the elite's right to ownership less sacred than the common citizen's? I have no idea, because I never made such a claim. > "You", in your example, can only buy these services because you could influence the State to wield its power in your best interest. I don't understand. Why wouldn't I be able to buy these services otherwise? > Call me old-fashioned I don't want to call you old-fashioned. More like incoherent.
    - jacobush 9y ago
      "They" = people who design superpacs and that money is speech. Ownership = as a nation and a democracy we steward many tangible values of the country You couldn't buy these services without NAFTA etc. Oldfashioned as in I romantically want to believe in "we the people" and not "we the global elite"
candiodari 9y ago
Global average wage is ~200$ per month, or about $1800 PPP dollars. I believe that answers your question. There is no alternative.

golergka 9y ago

> to rob That's a pretty strong claim you have here. Can you back it up? As far as I see, the 'closest neighbours' are in the ditch because they now compete with workers from other continents, and turns out that these workers are ready to do the same work for less. If I used to pay you money for your work, but then found someone else that would do that for half a price, I'm not robbing you. If anything, it's you who's been robbing the other dude before I started working with him.

sharemywin 9y ago
You make it sound like most people that make those decisions have a choice with outsourcing. If you don't lead the project to outsource they'll find someone that will. And if leadership won't make the decision the company you supply will find a competitor. and if you're a fortune 500 company then the bad quarterly results will get you replaced.
- golergka 9y ago
  > You make it sound like most people that make those decisions have a choice with outsourcing. Depends on your definition of "choice" and what "free will" is. In the definitions that I'm using, you always have a choice to stand on "high moral ground" (as you perceive it), lose money and in the end destroy your company. > And if leadership won't make the decision the company you supply will find a competitor. and if you're a fortune 500 company then the bad quarterly results will get you replaced. And if you follow the chain of cause and effect to the logical conclusion, you will see the same middle american, shopping in Walmart, searching for cheaper goods without any concern over whether they were produced in China or America. Companies and other large organizations like that cannot be moral or immoral, because they just serve as proxy for collective decisions and desires of other people - their shareholders and customers. And their shareholders and customers are usually the same usual american people, who want their pension savings to grow and buy things for cheap.
jacobush 9y ago
Call me old-fashioned but I think it's wrong when the powers that be deceive, manipulate and strong-arm the local worker to give what they owned, personally or collectively. Why is the elite's right to ownership less sacred than the common citizen's? "You", in your example, can only buy these services because you could influence the State to wield its power in your best interest. Wagging the dog and all that...
- golergka 9y ago
  > deceive, manipulate and strong-arm the local worker Can you back this claim up, please? > to give what they owned, personally or collectively Who is "they" here? Also, what are you talking about? > Why is the elite's right to ownership less sacred than the common citizen's? I have no idea, because I never made such a claim. > "You", in your example, can only buy these services because you could influence the State to wield its power in your best interest. I don't understand. Why wouldn't I be able to buy these services otherwise? > Call me old-fashioned I don't want to call you old-fashioned. More like incoherent.
  - jacobush 9y ago
    "They" = people who design superpacs and that money is speech. Ownership = as a nation and a democracy we steward many tangible values of the country You couldn't buy these services without NAFTA etc. Oldfashioned as in I romantically want to believe in "we the people" and not "we the global elite"

candiodari 9y ago

Global average wage is ~200$ per month, or about $1800 PPP dollars. I believe that answers your question. There is no alternative.