8 ms·

There are a lot of grumpy people who see a headline like this and say "good". From their perspective globalization is just a way for companies to export jobs t

There are a lot of grumpy people who see a headline like this and say "good". From their perspective globalization is just a way for companies to export jobs to countries with looser labor standards that allow the corporations to treat them like slave labor and avoid environmental and ethical regulations in the host country while also killing off a whole job segment of honest union factory jobs that support a robust middle class.

conorcleary 4y ago
Ask people to explain how vehicles tires are made (from raw resource to manufacture and distro) and suddenly globalization makes sense - it's the only way toward the future. Subtext is required to discern what is good and bad about it. We need to teach students of all ages some lessons about logistics and supply chain - not only will they better understand how the world functions but that there are career and business opportunities at every node.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  There's globalization-the-way-things-are-made-now, and there's globalization-the-neoliberal-trade-policy-that's-dominated-US-politics-since-the-80s. The former's a fact, the latter's... less so, and has been pretty unpopular among voters on both "sides of the aisle" more often than not for the entire time it's been the driving force behind US trade policy (the donor and think-tank sets love it, though, is why it's persisted regardless). Trump's the only big-two-party Presidential candidate I can recall in that whole time span who ran on strongly anti-neoliberalism (so, anti-globalization, in the pop-culture, colloquial sense of globalization) messaging, which worked pretty well for him since most R voters (and a good chunk of true-swing, and actually a lot on the left though they mostly wouldn't have voted for him for other reasons) more-or-less hate neoliberalism—regardless of the movement's merits, it's unpopular.
- adventured 4y ago
  > it's the only way toward the future The primary matter is not globalization or no globalization, it's about what balance and for which countries and industries. These things will constantly shift back and forth, the pendulum will over-swing as it does. Just because N amount of globalization makes sense, that doesn't mean the extent we have at present, and its composition, makes the most sense. And obviously that (what makes sense) will vary significantly by the national interest of a given country based on its culture and stage of development. The world is filled to the brim with competing interests and that will never change, some benefit more or less from more or less globalization.
tenebrisalietum 4y ago
These people also complain when stuff that was cheap isn't cheap anymore, and also when their own people don't want to work the crappy domestic jobs--one or two steps above slave labor--that imported labor did.
Analemma_ 4y ago
And those people are in for an unpleasant surprise when this onshoring actually gets underway: > In Morris Chang’s own estimation, the chips produced from TSMC Arizona may cost “at least 50% more” than the chips from TSMC Taiwan. Will TSMC pass on that cost to Apple or let it eat into its margins? Will Apple pass on that cost to consumers or let it eat into its margins? No one knows right now, but as TSMC Arizona starts churning out wafers, we will know soon enough. Jobs back in America is great in the abstract, until you have to pay for it. If everything in your life costs 50% more, then your effective income has fallen by a third. Are people actually going to be ok with that? We'll see.
- gedy 4y ago
  > If everything in your life costs 50% more, then your effective income has fallen by a third. Are people actually going to be ok with that? We'll see. This already happens with the non-outsourceable stuff that's more expensive (housing, medical, education, etc). So who TF cares if flat panel TVs or Phones cost more? Not me TBH.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Electronic garbage and (some kinds of) entertainment are basically the only things for which "globalization will bring down prices" has really delivered, at least in the US. Turns out it doesn't help with most of the stuff that actually matters, and might even hurt. So a fry cook can save a little and put together an entertainment center that would have been the envy of the neighborhood—almost unimaginably good—in 1992. So what? They're facing a hopeless financial situation on every other front. I guess it's nice the 65" 4K TV, Switch, and budget surround sound system can provide a distraction from everything else being ruinously expensive and getting worse every year, with seemingly no end in sight.
    - hahaxdxd123 4y ago
      The things that are "ruinously expensive" are also the things we can't outsource - housing, medical, education. Onshoring doesn't seem to me like it will improve the domestic policies that make each of those unaffordable.
2devnull 4y ago
There’s also people in the right who say good. These people seem to be focused on geopolitical stability ie defense.
- neon_electro 4y ago
  Something tells me GP meant to indicate tongue-in-cheek that the "grumpy" people are the people in the right ;)
recursivedoubts 4y ago
they may be grumpy, but, in fairness, they have a point maybe that's why they are grumpy
sottol 4y ago
I don't think undoing globalization is going to mean going back to the old ways. Personally, i think those well paying middle class jobs are gone, the status quo is too enshrined in the minds of business leaders, political thought (not just politicians, the populace) and the economy. The end of globalization will be more of the status quo, but different, not how it was once was in the golden years after WW2. If i had to guess, same global companies, some of the workforce still making 10-100x the average salary but now many of the low-paying jobs simply onshored, maybe even furthering the socio-economic divide because you won't be able to buy an American-made 60" TV for $800 anymore.
- citilife 4y ago
  I see what you are saying, but I think you're incorrect. What's more likely to happen in my mind is that there will be fewer people running factories. Recall, right now slave labor makes up a large amount of what you use. To adjust for that, you'll have to maximize worker productivity. That means more factories (potentially smaller and / or more generalized) and automation building various parts / equipment. Assembly often occurred in the host country anyway, so I don't see that changing too much. It'll be the tool and part making that'll have to return to places like the United States. I do think cost of goods will be high if we don't loosen some of the regulations, we need to keep people safe, but I think there's a balance. The reason people think it'll be an improvement has to do with competition. If there's a market for a set of goods here, it'll be filled. It may start off expensive, but as automation improves the process you need less workers and more machines. That's fine and eventually the product will be cheap to produce, but the people producing the good will be highly skilled (i.e. be well paid). Where I'm living there's a lot of factories. Salaries range from 65-110k in the factory work, all of which would be considered good wages in an area where the average home price is $300k (with low taxes).
  - projectazorian 4y ago
    > Recall, right now slave labor makes up a large amount of what you use. Citation needed
roody15 4y ago
Why are they necessary grumpy. Its kind of true. Lets look at Apple for example. They tout and market ideas of privacy, green energy, recycling, progressive social values etc... In reality they use slave labor in India and China that adhere to very little environmental standards. They also are not unionized. As long as the concept of a corporation is based on a legal obligation to maximize profit.. then "globalizing" this structure will not necessary "improve" the world on a social or environmental level.
- at-fates-hands 4y ago
  >> In reality they use slave labor in India and China that adhere to very little environmental standards. I would also add a lot of US companies export their toxic waste to China and India as well - then tout how much better we're getting as a country tackling climate change.
  - nowherebeen 4y ago
    Recycling as well. Most stuff like plastic can’t be easily recycled so they just ship it to China. It’s just cheaper to ship it offshore to be someone else’s problem. This is a piece [1] 60 minutes Australia did, but all Western countries are doing the same thing. [1]https://youtu.be/lqrlEsPoyJk https://youtu.be/lqrlEsPoyJk
    - jandrese 4y ago
      That doesn't really happen anymore. China stopped accepting plastic waste because there was no economic way to recycle it, even using Chinese labor. The plastic industry talks a lot about recycling and even includes those helpful triangles on their products, but in reality the vast majority of plastics go straight to the dump, even when you wash them and separate them out into the blue bins.
      - nowherebeen 4y ago
        There really should be a law against this kind of deceitful marketing.
6510 4y ago
I'm not grumpy but companies do export jobs to countries with "looser labor standards" and perhaps treat employees like slave labor (or actual slaves!) but more importantly lower salaries. Other [competing] companies who didn't export their jobs will still have to compete in the same market. If the product involves enough labor we cant pay very good salaries. The other company must now do the same. It is like multinationals are not sneakily trying to avoid taxes, if it is possible and everyone else is doing it they must also do it. The "robust middle class" is a misconception. Jobs just vanish which renders people without any income and it pushes salaries down where products are not very labor intense. It would be preferable to scale down all salaries to match those paid in other countries. At least people would have work! (which isn't actually all that important) The political wiggle room is not sufficient to lower the salaries to you know 1 dollar-ish per day or anything in that direction. The real issue is that people in all those other countries get to elect or otherwise install their own law makers or dictators. We have been unable to manufacture good law makers, dictators and other rules. They are of unbearably low quality, their price can be in the hundreds of millions of lives. You would think at prices that high you would get a decent product but nothing could be further from the truth. You could have their country men make your pants, your shoes, your computer, your food, your bed, your car, your... your... everything and they will do it really cheap, big profit margins for the companies. And then, one day, it all ends or it might not end but they may make any demand, however insane the implications you would have to suck it up or at least consider sucking it up with the alternative being no pants, no shoes, no computer, no food, no bed and no car - all simultaneously! We are currently trying the no gas thing here in the EU. It seems an obvious problem but then prices are going all the way up even in countries that produce their own gas!? Not having pants or shoes might be the least of your problems. I'm not grumpy, I'm confused people trust Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin that much. They logically have no reason to. What you want is a world where each country can take care of it self and, if a crisis or natural disaster strikes we can be there for them. If any one crazy ruler can take the whole world down the abys you would have to wonder why we build it like that?
Apofis 4y ago
Let us unchain ourselves from the politics of globalization and then we can proceed forward. Trade shouldn’t be a weapon.

conorcleary 4y ago

Ask people to explain how vehicles tires are made (from raw resource to manufacture and distro) and suddenly globalization makes sense - it's the only way toward the future. Subtext is required to discern what is good and bad about it. We need to teach students of all ages some lessons about logistics and supply chain - not only will they better understand how the world functions but that there are career and business opportunities at every node.

yamtaddle 4y ago
There's globalization-the-way-things-are-made-now, and there's globalization-the-neoliberal-trade-policy-that's-dominated-US-politics-since-the-80s. The former's a fact, the latter's... less so, and has been pretty unpopular among voters on both "sides of the aisle" more often than not for the entire time it's been the driving force behind US trade policy (the donor and think-tank sets love it, though, is why it's persisted regardless). Trump's the only big-two-party Presidential candidate I can recall in that whole time span who ran on strongly anti-neoliberalism (so, anti-globalization, in the pop-culture, colloquial sense of globalization) messaging, which worked pretty well for him since most R voters (and a good chunk of true-swing, and actually a lot on the left though they mostly wouldn't have voted for him for other reasons) more-or-less hate neoliberalism—regardless of the movement's merits, it's unpopular.
adventured 4y ago
> it's the only way toward the future The primary matter is not globalization or no globalization, it's about what balance and for which countries and industries. These things will constantly shift back and forth, the pendulum will over-swing as it does. Just because N amount of globalization makes sense, that doesn't mean the extent we have at present, and its composition, makes the most sense. And obviously that (what makes sense) will vary significantly by the national interest of a given country based on its culture and stage of development. The world is filled to the brim with competing interests and that will never change, some benefit more or less from more or less globalization.

tenebrisalietum 4y ago

These people also complain when stuff that was cheap isn't cheap anymore, and also when their own people don't want to work the crappy domestic jobs--one or two steps above slave labor--that imported labor did.

Analemma_ 4y ago

And those people are in for an unpleasant surprise when this onshoring actually gets underway: > In Morris Chang’s own estimation, the chips produced from TSMC Arizona may cost “at least 50% more” than the chips from TSMC Taiwan. Will TSMC pass on that cost to Apple or let it eat into its margins? Will Apple pass on that cost to consumers or let it eat into its margins? No one knows right now, but as TSMC Arizona starts churning out wafers, we will know soon enough. Jobs back in America is great in the abstract, until you have to pay for it. If everything in your life costs 50% more, then your effective income has fallen by a third. Are people actually going to be ok with that? We'll see.

gedy 4y ago
> If everything in your life costs 50% more, then your effective income has fallen by a third. Are people actually going to be ok with that? We'll see. This already happens with the non-outsourceable stuff that's more expensive (housing, medical, education, etc). So who TF cares if flat panel TVs or Phones cost more? Not me TBH.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Electronic garbage and (some kinds of) entertainment are basically the only things for which "globalization will bring down prices" has really delivered, at least in the US. Turns out it doesn't help with most of the stuff that actually matters, and might even hurt. So a fry cook can save a little and put together an entertainment center that would have been the envy of the neighborhood—almost unimaginably good—in 1992. So what? They're facing a hopeless financial situation on every other front. I guess it's nice the 65" 4K TV, Switch, and budget surround sound system can provide a distraction from everything else being ruinously expensive and getting worse every year, with seemingly no end in sight.
  - hahaxdxd123 4y ago
    The things that are "ruinously expensive" are also the things we can't outsource - housing, medical, education. Onshoring doesn't seem to me like it will improve the domestic policies that make each of those unaffordable.

2devnull 4y ago

There’s also people in the right who say good. These people seem to be focused on geopolitical stability ie defense.

neon_electro 4y ago
Something tells me GP meant to indicate tongue-in-cheek that the "grumpy" people are the people in the right ;)

recursivedoubts 4y ago

they may be grumpy, but, in fairness, they have a point maybe that's why they are grumpy

sottol 4y ago

I don't think undoing globalization is going to mean going back to the old ways. Personally, i think those well paying middle class jobs are gone, the status quo is too enshrined in the minds of business leaders, political thought (not just politicians, the populace) and the economy. The end of globalization will be more of the status quo, but different, not how it was once was in the golden years after WW2. If i had to guess, same global companies, some of the workforce still making 10-100x the average salary but now many of the low-paying jobs simply onshored, maybe even furthering the socio-economic divide because you won't be able to buy an American-made 60" TV for $800 anymore.

citilife 4y ago
I see what you are saying, but I think you're incorrect. What's more likely to happen in my mind is that there will be fewer people running factories. Recall, right now slave labor makes up a large amount of what you use. To adjust for that, you'll have to maximize worker productivity. That means more factories (potentially smaller and / or more generalized) and automation building various parts / equipment. Assembly often occurred in the host country anyway, so I don't see that changing too much. It'll be the tool and part making that'll have to return to places like the United States. I do think cost of goods will be high if we don't loosen some of the regulations, we need to keep people safe, but I think there's a balance. The reason people think it'll be an improvement has to do with competition. If there's a market for a set of goods here, it'll be filled. It may start off expensive, but as automation improves the process you need less workers and more machines. That's fine and eventually the product will be cheap to produce, but the people producing the good will be highly skilled (i.e. be well paid). Where I'm living there's a lot of factories. Salaries range from 65-110k in the factory work, all of which would be considered good wages in an area where the average home price is $300k (with low taxes).
- projectazorian 4y ago
  > Recall, right now slave labor makes up a large amount of what you use. Citation needed

roody15 4y ago

Why are they necessary grumpy. Its kind of true. Lets look at Apple for example. They tout and market ideas of privacy, green energy, recycling, progressive social values etc... In reality they use slave labor in India and China that adhere to very little environmental standards. They also are not unionized. As long as the concept of a corporation is based on a legal obligation to maximize profit.. then "globalizing" this structure will not necessary "improve" the world on a social or environmental level.

at-fates-hands 4y ago
>> In reality they use slave labor in India and China that adhere to very little environmental standards. I would also add a lot of US companies export their toxic waste to China and India as well - then tout how much better we're getting as a country tackling climate change.
- nowherebeen 4y ago
  Recycling as well. Most stuff like plastic can’t be easily recycled so they just ship it to China. It’s just cheaper to ship it offshore to be someone else’s problem. This is a piece [1] 60 minutes Australia did, but all Western countries are doing the same thing. [1]https://youtu.be/lqrlEsPoyJk https://youtu.be/lqrlEsPoyJk
  - jandrese 4y ago
    That doesn't really happen anymore. China stopped accepting plastic waste because there was no economic way to recycle it, even using Chinese labor. The plastic industry talks a lot about recycling and even includes those helpful triangles on their products, but in reality the vast majority of plastics go straight to the dump, even when you wash them and separate them out into the blue bins.
    - nowherebeen 4y ago
      There really should be a law against this kind of deceitful marketing.

6510 4y ago

I'm not grumpy but companies do export jobs to countries with "looser labor standards" and perhaps treat employees like slave labor (or actual slaves!) but more importantly lower salaries. Other [competing] companies who didn't export their jobs will still have to compete in the same market. If the product involves enough labor we cant pay very good salaries. The other company must now do the same. It is like multinationals are not sneakily trying to avoid taxes, if it is possible and everyone else is doing it they must also do it. The "robust middle class" is a misconception. Jobs just vanish which renders people without any income and it pushes salaries down where products are not very labor intense. It would be preferable to scale down all salaries to match those paid in other countries. At least people would have work! (which isn't actually all that important) The political wiggle room is not sufficient to lower the salaries to you know 1 dollar-ish per day or anything in that direction. The real issue is that people in all those other countries get to elect or otherwise install their own law makers or dictators. We have been unable to manufacture good law makers, dictators and other rules. They are of unbearably low quality, their price can be in the hundreds of millions of lives. You would think at prices that high you would get a decent product but nothing could be further from the truth. You could have their country men make your pants, your shoes, your computer, your food, your bed, your car, your... your... everything and they will do it really cheap, big profit margins for the companies. And then, one day, it all ends or it might not end but they may make any demand, however insane the implications you would have to suck it up or at least consider sucking it up with the alternative being no pants, no shoes, no computer, no food, no bed and no car - all simultaneously! We are currently trying the no gas thing here in the EU. It seems an obvious problem but then prices are going all the way up even in countries that produce their own gas!? Not having pants or shoes might be the least of your problems. I'm not grumpy, I'm confused people trust Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin that much. They logically have no reason to. What you want is a world where each country can take care of it self and, if a crisis or natural disaster strikes we can be there for them. If any one crazy ruler can take the whole world down the abys you would have to wonder why we build it like that?

Apofis 4y ago

Let us unchain ourselves from the politics of globalization and then we can proceed forward. Trade shouldn’t be a weapon.