3 ms·

I absolutely agree. I think that the whole notion of automation being responsible for job losses is also lies and misdirection. The man behind the curtain is te

I absolutely agree. I think that the whole notion of automation being responsible for job losses is also lies and misdirection. The man behind the curtain is telling us to avoid paying too much attention to austerity, outsourcing, offshoring and union busting. In 2011, for instance, amid a period of labor unrest, Hong hai announced to the world with much fanfare that they were going to soon eliminate 1 million jobs with robots. They subsequently created about 400,000 jobs. Nobody noticed.

abusoufiyan 9y ago
I agree with everything except one minor detail. Not sure if outsourcing and offshoring are such bad things. I mean, if someone will work for less than you, you either need to do better work, do cheaper work, or find different work.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  In the luddites' case that 'person' was willing to work for less using the weaving machinery because they were desperate. The Napoleonic Wars made them lose their livelihoods, homes and families. After the industrial revolution, the enclosure movement was used to strip peasants of their land. After being dispossessed, they were then desperate enough to accept the paltry wages and disgusting working conditions offered by the factory owners. Today, a Chinese factory worker may be saving money because they need to care for their infirm grandmother living in a cancer village because the state provides little to no social welfare support for her. Do you think it's germane to argue on a moral basis that because China provides no welfare for that grandmother that American factory workers ought to take a pay cut? Personally, I think trade policy needs to be intimately connected to human rights and environmental and labor conditions. No improvement in those sectors, no deal. That isn't the world we live in though. We live in a world where Obama tried to excuse Malaysian slavery in order to try and enact a trade deal so that American workers could be forced to compete with slaves in Malaysia.
  - abusoufiyan 9y ago
    >Personally, I think trade policy needs to be intimately connected to human rights and environmental and labor conditions. It's never ever ever going to happen. Be careful what you wish for. If what you wanted to happen happened, you would be paying over $100 for the same shirt that costs you $6 in Walmart right now. I also want to point out that, yes, in a globally competitive world wages become globally competitive. If a Chinese worker with an infirm grandmother is surviving on a lower wage than an American was making without an infirm grandmother, then that American needs to find better work, do better quality work, or take a pay cut. We would never force consumers to buy products produced only by ethical means or only by human-rights approved conditions (if that were the case, no more chocolate!). Why would we do that to multinational companies? There aren't other options available. No President is going to preside over the term where all the trade deals were made alongside human rights conditionals and all the goods skyrocketed in price leading to another Great Depression. > We live in a world where Obama tried to excuse Malaysian slavery in order to try and enact a trade deal so that American workers could be forced to compete with slaves in Malaysia. You can boohoo about it all you want, but your chocolate, your coffee, your clothes, and your computer parts are all made by or had their materials harvested by slaves, and most likely you would scoff at voluntarily paying twice the price for all those commodities. I'm not saying everyone should be enslaved. But if consumers have the right to purchase such ill-made goods, then companies have the right to offshore their labor forces to such places too.
    - roma1n 9y ago
      Where did you pull your $100 figure from? Suppose this accounting of environment and labor results in paying say $50 for a shirt that would be durable, then this might simply be awesome. Fewer, more durable goods that in the long term may be cheaper through automation. The answer to slavery may or may not be automation but certainly isn't "well, though, that's capitalism for you."
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >you would be paying over $100 $100 is sheer fantasy. It might double the price of a shirt from $6 to $12. >There aren't other options available. No President is going to preside over the term where all the trade deals were made alongside human rights conditionals This is actually how it used to happen and this is partly how TPP was killed in Congress (by attaching an anti-slavery rider). >You can boohoo about it all you want, but your chocolate, your coffee, your clothes, and your computer parts are all made by or had their materials harvested by slaves, and most likely you would scoff at voluntarily paying twice the price for all those commodities. No, I'm more than happy to pay a extra for chocolate, coffee, clothes and computer parts if I get to live in a world where labor exploitation, environmental destruction and slavery is made more difficult. Are you really willing to go on the record and state that your preference is for the opposite?

abusoufiyan 9y ago

I agree with everything except one minor detail. Not sure if outsourcing and offshoring are such bad things. I mean, if someone will work for less than you, you either need to do better work, do cheaper work, or find different work.

crdoconnor 9y ago
In the luddites' case that 'person' was willing to work for less using the weaving machinery because they were desperate. The Napoleonic Wars made them lose their livelihoods, homes and families. After the industrial revolution, the enclosure movement was used to strip peasants of their land. After being dispossessed, they were then desperate enough to accept the paltry wages and disgusting working conditions offered by the factory owners. Today, a Chinese factory worker may be saving money because they need to care for their infirm grandmother living in a cancer village because the state provides little to no social welfare support for her. Do you think it's germane to argue on a moral basis that because China provides no welfare for that grandmother that American factory workers ought to take a pay cut? Personally, I think trade policy needs to be intimately connected to human rights and environmental and labor conditions. No improvement in those sectors, no deal. That isn't the world we live in though. We live in a world where Obama tried to excuse Malaysian slavery in order to try and enact a trade deal so that American workers could be forced to compete with slaves in Malaysia.
- abusoufiyan 9y ago
  >Personally, I think trade policy needs to be intimately connected to human rights and environmental and labor conditions. It's never ever ever going to happen. Be careful what you wish for. If what you wanted to happen happened, you would be paying over $100 for the same shirt that costs you $6 in Walmart right now. I also want to point out that, yes, in a globally competitive world wages become globally competitive. If a Chinese worker with an infirm grandmother is surviving on a lower wage than an American was making without an infirm grandmother, then that American needs to find better work, do better quality work, or take a pay cut. We would never force consumers to buy products produced only by ethical means or only by human-rights approved conditions (if that were the case, no more chocolate!). Why would we do that to multinational companies? There aren't other options available. No President is going to preside over the term where all the trade deals were made alongside human rights conditionals and all the goods skyrocketed in price leading to another Great Depression. > We live in a world where Obama tried to excuse Malaysian slavery in order to try and enact a trade deal so that American workers could be forced to compete with slaves in Malaysia. You can boohoo about it all you want, but your chocolate, your coffee, your clothes, and your computer parts are all made by or had their materials harvested by slaves, and most likely you would scoff at voluntarily paying twice the price for all those commodities. I'm not saying everyone should be enslaved. But if consumers have the right to purchase such ill-made goods, then companies have the right to offshore their labor forces to such places too.
  - roma1n 9y ago
    Where did you pull your $100 figure from? Suppose this accounting of environment and labor results in paying say $50 for a shirt that would be durable, then this might simply be awesome. Fewer, more durable goods that in the long term may be cheaper through automation. The answer to slavery may or may not be automation but certainly isn't "well, though, that's capitalism for you."
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >you would be paying over $100 $100 is sheer fantasy. It might double the price of a shirt from $6 to $12. >There aren't other options available. No President is going to preside over the term where all the trade deals were made alongside human rights conditionals This is actually how it used to happen and this is partly how TPP was killed in Congress (by attaching an anti-slavery rider). >You can boohoo about it all you want, but your chocolate, your coffee, your clothes, and your computer parts are all made by or had their materials harvested by slaves, and most likely you would scoff at voluntarily paying twice the price for all those commodities. No, I'm more than happy to pay a extra for chocolate, coffee, clothes and computer parts if I get to live in a world where labor exploitation, environmental destruction and slavery is made more difficult. Are you really willing to go on the record and state that your preference is for the opposite?