3 ms·

And also other, poorer 52 year old men will have jobs. Which doesn't mean it doesn't suck for him.

petermcneeley 8y ago
Exactly! This reporter should have explained the details of comparative advantage to these recently unemployed individuals to help them see how much better they are off economically.
- aetherson 8y ago
  While it's obvious why this guy would prioritize his own job over someone else's, it's pretty unclear to me why you would expect the reader to care. Why should I care if a South Korean person has a particular job versus a Chinese person or whatever? I don't know any of them. Even if I did prefer jobs to go to my own culture or country or ethnic group or whatever (I largely don't), these are all third parties to me and probably the vast majority of people reading this article. I can understand people who are opposed to globalization to the extent that it causes job loses in their own country -- even though I don't agree with them. But the logic of anti-globalization goes out the window when it's comparing two different third-party countries.
  - jannyfer 8y ago
    To me, the article’s main point wasn’t about one person losing a job, but about cities that are built around one industry.
  - brazzledazzle 8y ago
    The simple answer is that you care because of empathy.
  - rectang 8y ago
    > it's pretty unclear to me why you would expect the reader to care. Because even if the universe is indifferent and the problems of globalization are vexing we can see even people of other cultures as fellow humans and feel empathy for them?
    - aetherson 8y ago
      Sure. Globalization produces losers. Real ones. This guy's life is worse than it was, likely persistently so. We can recognize that, and say it sucks. But someone else's life is better, likely persistently so. That job didn't vanish, it relocated. That doesn't erase the suffering. But it does suggest that the kind of snotty performative anti-globalism that started this thread is, at best, shortsighted.
      - gaius 8y ago
        That job didn't vanish, it relocated. That's subtly not true; the very nature of the job changed. It started off as a job-for-life type job, supposedly secure, didn't quite work out that way, but that was the original intent. Now it's a mobile offshore job, that is fully intended to keep moving every few years chasing whatever location is cheaper and less regulated.
      - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        Sure, right now it doesn't affect you. It's not snotty or short sighted though. Eventually we can recognise the pattern, and see it's the raison d'être of globalisation. Separate commerce from state, community and people. One day you'll have seen this happen so many times, to so many people, that you decide the cost is probably too high. Perhaps by then you've done so OK that you still don't care. The next town over that never recovered from losing it's steel mill, mine or shipyard, and the fifty and sixty year olds that can't have a comfortable retirement or pay the last 25% of the mortgage. Sure, they may retrain - if the courses are available. No chance of even 25% of their former highly skilled wage, maybe end up in an unskilled role in a store or call centre. No way to make another degree pay at that stage of life. A life of no opportunity and possibly anti-depressants. The damage to everyone who lives in the same town even if they worked elsewhere. It's a constant. One day it'll be your industry or skill that relocated or ceased to be. Or of those you care for. Just for another dollar for the shareholder. But hey, someone's life is better. With all that GDP real-terms growth we should be able to find a variation on the theme that ruins fewer lives.
        8y ago
  - clanreborn 8y ago
    > The simple answer is that you care because of empathy Being empathetic to your competitors is a recipe for disaster. You can only feed one family, either yours or theirs.
    - ACow_Adonis 8y ago
      You could both eat the rich :p

Exactly! This reporter should have explained the details of comparative advantage to these recently unemployed individuals to help them see how much better they are off economically.

aetherson 8y ago
While it's obvious why this guy would prioritize his own job over someone else's, it's pretty unclear to me why you would expect the reader to care. Why should I care if a South Korean person has a particular job versus a Chinese person or whatever? I don't know any of them. Even if I did prefer jobs to go to my own culture or country or ethnic group or whatever (I largely don't), these are all third parties to me and probably the vast majority of people reading this article. I can understand people who are opposed to globalization to the extent that it causes job loses in their own country -- even though I don't agree with them. But the logic of anti-globalization goes out the window when it's comparing two different third-party countries.
- jannyfer 8y ago
  To me, the article’s main point wasn’t about one person losing a job, but about cities that are built around one industry.
- brazzledazzle 8y ago
  The simple answer is that you care because of empathy.
- rectang 8y ago
  > it's pretty unclear to me why you would expect the reader to care. Because even if the universe is indifferent and the problems of globalization are vexing we can see even people of other cultures as fellow humans and feel empathy for them?
  - aetherson 8y ago
    Sure. Globalization produces losers. Real ones. This guy's life is worse than it was, likely persistently so. We can recognize that, and say it sucks. But someone else's life is better, likely persistently so. That job didn't vanish, it relocated. That doesn't erase the suffering. But it does suggest that the kind of snotty performative anti-globalism that started this thread is, at best, shortsighted.
    - gaius 8y ago
      That job didn't vanish, it relocated. That's subtly not true; the very nature of the job changed. It started off as a job-for-life type job, supposedly secure, didn't quite work out that way, but that was the original intent. Now it's a mobile offshore job, that is fully intended to keep moving every few years chasing whatever location is cheaper and less regulated.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      Sure, right now it doesn't affect you. It's not snotty or short sighted though. Eventually we can recognise the pattern, and see it's the raison d'être of globalisation. Separate commerce from state, community and people. One day you'll have seen this happen so many times, to so many people, that you decide the cost is probably too high. Perhaps by then you've done so OK that you still don't care. The next town over that never recovered from losing it's steel mill, mine or shipyard, and the fifty and sixty year olds that can't have a comfortable retirement or pay the last 25% of the mortgage. Sure, they may retrain - if the courses are available. No chance of even 25% of their former highly skilled wage, maybe end up in an unskilled role in a store or call centre. No way to make another degree pay at that stage of life. A life of no opportunity and possibly anti-depressants. The damage to everyone who lives in the same town even if they worked elsewhere. It's a constant. One day it'll be your industry or skill that relocated or ceased to be. Or of those you care for. Just for another dollar for the shareholder. But hey, someone's life is better. With all that GDP real-terms growth we should be able to find a variation on the theme that ruins fewer lives.
      - 8y ago
- clanreborn 8y ago
  > The simple answer is that you care because of empathy Being empathetic to your competitors is a recipe for disaster. You can only feed one family, either yours or theirs.
  - ACow_Adonis 8y ago
    You could both eat the rich :p