This topic was inspired by a new member: zhengy125
Welcome Aboard zhengy125

Is globalization a bad thing? Depends on how you look at it I guess. When we focus on the jobs lost and the people effected by those losses it is hard to see it as anything but a horrible thing.

However, how do we fight it?

Tariffs?

In Recent History President Bush put Tariffs on foreign steel to protect the American Steel industry. During that time the price of steel jumped dramatically. This resulted in a decrease in construction across the country. That decrease is construction cost alot of construction workers (including me).

Tax Incentives?

It's an interesting Idea. However, is this not just another way to give tax breaks to corporations? More importantly, in the global market, that we are undeniably in, companies need the ability to increase and reduce production and operations costs rapidly so that they can stay profitable with ever decreasing profit margins.

Tax Penalties?

This could as easily cause a company to move it's entire operation overseas rather then just a portion of it.

Buy American Campaigns?

Well, we have had this off and on since the 1970s and it just doesn't seem to catch on. People ever increasingly seek to get the most out of every dollar. Quite frequently that means they have to select the goods from China over those from America.

The problem with fighting globalization is that you usually end up taking jobs from other groups of workers when you try to protect jobs in one sector. You also artificially keep costs up, which translates into all of us spending more to live. So effectively / practically you give alot of Americans a pay cut, by reducing how much their money can buy.

What I think we need to do is address the issue not by trying to fight globalization but by trying to make it work for American workers.

We need to rethink of workers are treated. Separating benefits from employers so when workers end up having to change jobs the effect on their lives is minimal is a good start. We also need to come up with ways to help workers pay for training that will get them into other higher paying jobs/careers when their's is lost.

IMHO fighting globalization is simply fighting progress and delaying the inevitable growing pains of our ever changing economy and industries.

A great book on this subject is called: The Radical Center


So for debate / discussion:

What is the solution to the problems Globalization causes American workers and how do we implement them?

What is the solution to the problems Globalization causes American workers and how do we implement them?

A good question, and one that has had me foxed for some time.

Instinctively, I think globalisation has to be a good thing - all of the saws that we apply to welfare and third world aid that it doesn't solve the problem, it just creates dependency and so on have much validity, so we're helping the poor of the world far more by letting them get jobs and feed themselves than we are by keeping them out of work and sending them food aid.

Clearly, though, this approach has gone somewhat awry, as in some areas we subsidise our own workers into overproduction so they dump the excess goods on the poorer countries at prices the local producers can't compete with, which puts them out of work - both EU and US farming practices do this on a massive scale.

And in other areas of business, we end up allowing our own companies to export jobs from our countries to cheaper foreign ones, putting our workers out of jobs.

This last bit is the part of the globalisation puzzle you are addressing here. I don't think we can solve the puzzle by looking just at this piece of it - we have to look at globalisation all of a piece.

To me, there are two central issues:

1. Globalisation, as currently practiced, is largely a one-way street. Our companies get access to their markets - not just their consumer market, but, critically for your debate question, their jobs market too - but we are not nearly so eager to give their businesses access to our markets.
2. Globalisation, as currently practiced, makes no reference at all to workers - ours or theirs. It is all about stockholders and consumers, in that order, and that's it. This makes some internal sense, since in Anglo-Saxon economies, that is how business runs, and to date, efforts of globalisation have been mostly geared towards improving the returns of stockholders

My gut feel is that we should broaden out globalisation - placing obligations on companies and countries to at least meet a common international standard of worker rights - an international minimum wage, perhap, and certainly minimum standards of safety, working age, and so on. Minimum acceptable standards of pollution and efficiency of resource use wouldn't hurt, either.

All through this, I emphasise minimum standards - I'm not suggesting here that we try to turn the world into a socialist paradise 35-hour maximum work weeks and the like, much though I might like the idea An 80-hour contracted maximum - i.e. you can't sack someone, or refuse to employ them, for refusing to work more han 80 hours per week, but you can't say they aren't allowed to do it if they want to - with a guaranteed day off each week. The kind of things we take for granted in the West, even if they aren't formally codified everywhere. These might be better places to start.

At the same time, we should broaden it out in our own economies to remove all subsidies - no matter how many votes there might be in them at home. Subsidies only really serve to spoil foreign economies with surpluses - we pay less at the tills for domestic subsidised goods, but then we've already paid the subsidies themselves out of our taxes. So, for us as consumers, it's almost a zero-sum game.

And, if we impose rigid rules on working conditions for the procudtion of goods or services coming into our economy, the costs of production overseas will be forced up in line with the rises in living standards that the foreign workers then enjoy, which makes them a little less attractive to our own companies when they look at moving jobs abroad to cut costs.

Such measures may slow the frantic pace of globalisation (but not by all that much, I bet), but they would ensure that what does go on will spread the benefits on everyone - workers, consumers AND stockholders.

The end-point will most likely be the same - a single global market in everything, where evrything gets produced and sold at the lowest possible cost, and the minimum living standard everywhere rises to a decent level. It will take a few decades longer to get there, but the pain caused as the global market makes it's glacier-pace corrections will be a lot less for everyone involved.

I think the unions, having taken such a hit from the current type of corpratism/fascism (as an economic definition, not in the hitler/totalitarian definition that the name conjures up) that is going on in America, have started to understand that the best thing they can do to offset this global domination of the corporate state, is to unionize globally. This may be the key to the whole problem, if there is some global unionization or collective bargaining, not in a central sense, but on a regional basis, but everyone doing it, would probably put an important check into the abuses we see of folks like Nike or Walmart doing the horrible exploitation that they currently get away with.

My own Union went international a few years ago and they are seeing some serious success in some third world countries.

We definately need some kind of global law and check for global corporatism, because the power they currently wield is in excess of many countries ability to combat.

When you have companies that have bottom lines larger than all but around 11 countries in the world, that translates to unrestricted power.

[quote=CruisingRam,Nov 5 2004, 11:27 AM]
I think the unions, having taken such a hit from the current type of corpratism/fascism (as an economic definition, not in the hitler/totalitarian definition that the name conjures up) that is going on in America, have started to understand that the best thing they can do to offset this global domination of the corporate state, is to unionize globally. This may be the key to the whole problem, if there is some global unionization or collective bargaining, not in a central sense, but on a regional basis, but everyone doing it, would probably put an important check into the abuses we see of folks like Nike or Walmart doing the horrible exploitation that they currently get away with.
[QUOTE]

This is probably one of those areas where there is a difference between conservative and liberal philosophy, but I must respond No NO NO, a thousand times NO! What unions must realize is that globalization has, to a large degree, occurred precisely BECAUSE of their actions. If you focus on driving up workers wages, without also insuring that productivity takes a similar rise, you are driving your own work force out of business. What unions need to do to rectify the problem is to refocus their efforts on productivity. If workers are more productive, they become more difficult to replace, outsourcing becomes more difficult to justify, the company becomes more successful, and the workers will get paid more. Unions focus on the wrong ends of this spectrum.

Julian discusses how corporations are focused on increasing shareholder value. That is simply a business truism....it is what they are SUPPOSED to be focusing on. In fact, it is also what the WORKERS should be focused on. If you are adding shareholder value, you will not be outsourced...why would you be? Now, I will be the first to admit that far too many companies and managers also approach this problem incorrectly. There is far too much truth in the joke about 'the beatings will continue until morale improves'. Workers, and not management, are the keys to ensuring a companies success. So, where I see the role unions need to play is to ensure the management and workers work together to achieve company success. A company that achieves success through its workers will reward them accordingly...it simply can't afford not to.

One final point....I now this is probably coming off as the stereotypical 'Big Business' conservative mantra...ie, screw the workers. I want to be clear...that is NOT my viewpoint, or my intent. Workers are the key to company success...it is the managers role to enable them, and get the heck out of their way. I am a strong believer in the desire and ability of the individual worker to excel...survey after survey validates this, indicating that most workers major complaints are that they are not recognized for their contributions (manager's fault), and that they are not provided with opportunities to improve processes (again, management's fault). So, I am more critical of management than I am workers. I do have issues with unions, though, in that I feel they don't realize that, with the focus many of them have, they are creating the very problems they are most vocally complaining about. Companies are most successful when workers and management work together...too often unions are a hindrance to that, not a help.

How does this relate to the general topic? Globalization will occur....it can't be stopped. I'm in the IT field, so I'm impacted by this as much as anybody. I don't have problems with the ideas presented by Julian...business practices in many countries give them an inherent advantage over US companies, who have to comply with many more regulations. If legislation can be successful in addressing this, I don't have a particular issue with that...I do have to wonder if more regulation is the right solution to a problem created by regulation, though. But, in this case, it might be. Companies won't comply with environmental and workplace regulations if they don't have to, so legislation might be the appropriate avenue. Global standards that need to be met before companies/people are allowed to sell goods/work in the US marketplace would probably be beneficial...I think such laws are already in place, but not globally. Regardless, I prefer to think of this on a more individual level. Each person is in fact able to control how globalization impacts them. Everyone needs to take a look at their occupation, and decide if it is something in which they can honestly say it can be done better by them than by someone somewhere else. If it can---you will eventually be outsourced. You can only prevent this by making yourself indispensable, through training, skills, ability to interact directly with customers...something! If you're not adding more value to the company than someone else...you are probably going to be replaced. Take action! Make yourself indispensable!

What is the solution to the problems Globalization causes American workers and how do we implement them?

Well the first step here I think is to realize it is inevitable and even in a lot of cases desirable. However, I think there are a lot of things that need to change in order to do it the right way. Our current rules, culture and system do not allow us to globalize in a mutually beneficial and ethical fashion in my opinion.

First, we need to work with an international coalition and establish some kind of basic labor laws for the countries we work with. I think sending a plant to China is a valid business decision, but where I do not agree with that is when the labor is essentially slave labor. I'm not even so much talking about wages as I am about working conditions and employee protections. I think that each country should determine what they want to do regarding minimum wages, but I don't want to see our corporations exploiting certain countries simply because they don't have any rules and anything goes. Allowing that basically allows corporations to approach labor with a 19th century attitude, before there were laws in the US.

Secondly, the tax code needs to be amended to not give tax advantages to companies which relocate their operations overseas. To me that just doesn't even approach the realm of logic. Why would the US government have an interest in encouraging companies to send work outside of our borders? This one snuck in due to special interests and it needs to be eliminated because it isn't good for the country as a whole.

Third, federal, state and local governments need to do everything in their power to encourage innovation and new industries. I see this primarily in the form of tax breaks for both corporations and individuals who are early adopters. The thing that in my opinion makes America great is our ability to innovate. There is a reason that the world is running IBM/HP/Dell computers with Microsoft Windows connecting to the internet over Cisco routers. The next big areas where we have the potential to get out in front of everyone else is the biotech industry and alternative fuels, hybrids and alternative fuel infrastructure. The latter topic was the focus of this thread and how the Japanese are already beting us to the punch here. The first topic can mean a lot of things, but it definitely means we need to drop these "moral reservations" when it comes to stem cell research.

What the government as a whole can do here is offer tax breaks to companies willing to risk their financial necks to innovate here. The tax breaks need to be significant enough that they aren't just a nice door prize, but instead they are a carrot. And as far as consumers go, we need to reward early adopters (e.g. those buying hybrid vehicles). We are doing some of that today, but it needs to be a big enough break that it covers the difference between and traditional vehicle and offers extra incentive. I don't see this as controlling the market but rather prodding it in the direction you want it to go, and this is no different than what Greenspan does every day by manipulating interest rates.

Fourth, we need to get programs put in place to re-train people in these industries that we are sending overseas. It simply isn't enough to say "sorry we are closing the plant and sending it to Mexico, best of luck finding another job". We need to be taking these people into programs to re-train them to do other jobs and fit in to growing industries. I frequently hear the rhetoric that these people should do this on their own. On a certain level I can respect and agree with that, but I also know first hand how difficult it is to make a radical change in your life, go back to school and leave everything you know. Most people aren't strong enough to do that and fear overtakes them. We need a program, resources and support that makes this easier. A factory worker with 3 kids isn't going to be thinking about going back to school for a new job, they are going to be frantically looking for the same job (even with less pay) so they can pay the mortgage and put food on the table.

Finally, higher education institutions need to wake up. The biggest problem with outsourcing as far as I am concerned isn't that we are losing blue collar jobs (that has been happening for years and isn't new) it is that we are now losing white collar jobs. The problem here is that you have people going to college, spending 4+ years of their life training for a profession and investing 10's of thousands of dollars in an education for professions with no future. Schools need to get with the program and stop training people to do jobs which are getting shipped to India, China and Russia because people there will do them for a fraction of the cost. They need to get ahead of the curve and offer training in new industries, they need to actually teach people how to lead, they need to teach entrepreneurship and it all needs to be hands on not text books. I can without a doubt say that my college degree is completely worthless except for the fact that it is a 35K piece of paper that gets my foot in the door, and that needs to change.

Our culture needs to change also, especially in regards to education. Take a look at the eagerness of students in China and India (and other parts of the world too) in soaking up knowledge and excelling at what they do and compare that to the average American student and the difference is staggering. This needs to change, and that starts with parents instilling the appropriate values in their kids.

In summary, globalization isn't the boogieman and in fact we should embrace it. However, if we aren't prepared and if we don't make some serious changes then we aren't going to stay ahead of the curve and the American people will suffer as a result.

As I understand it. American farmers for example are subsidized to NOT grow, in order to keep the food prices at a certain level. That would seem to create a market for other countries foods here, if they can produce and transport them more cheaply then the prices we artificially inflate. What programs do you refer to? I'm not trying to suggest this isn't true, I just do see this sort of practice and would like to know where it exists.







Many people suggest some level of global rules concerning labor and business practices. I can see the value of such rules, but I'm concerned about how they would be enforced. How to you tell a sovereign nation that you can dictate what they do in one area or another? The answer, would seem to be economically, as suggested earlier in the topic. If you get an organization together that monitors labor and business practices in the world (with the bill going equally to the member nations via a small transaction tax or something similar) then when a country is found wanting, the information could be brought to the rest of the group who could choose to set sanctions on trade with that nation until the issue is resolved. This way, that nation can choose the path it wants to take, though it would likely fall in line to avoid reduced trade.




BRAVO!! This one issue that came up in the recent election that I entirely agree with! But we can go further. The reason it cost so much to do business in America is Regulation and Labor costs. We don't want to reduce wages, because that just reduces spending, which weakens the economy, but we can address regulation. Why do we fine a company out of existence when they don't install the proper stack washers to protect the air? Why don't we try a tax subsidy or partial grant to help them pay for the improvement to the environment?




Great Idea, though frequently this sort of thing is smeared as corporate welfare. The fact is, corporations need to be profitable to survive. If a new innovation is promising, but the early stages would create financial losses then fewer companies would invest in the development of the new "wonder SUV" or whatever. Government subsidies on research allows business to reduce the risk of these venture to the point where the investment makes financial sense.

However, there needs to be a price for this. If the government subsidizes the research into a new drug, then the drug manufacturer should be restricted on how high the profit margin can be on that drug once it hits the market. Want to avoid such restrictions? Then take all the risks on your own. Want the government to financially assist in mitigating the risks? Then agree to a maximum profit margin.




Absolutely. But how do we fund such programs? That is the problem with much of what is proposed in this arena. The cost of doing business in the west is what drives companies to the east, but most of the solutions cost more money.

A simple way to pay for this is the flip the tax break companies get for going over seas into a tax penalty and legislatively earmark all revenues from that tax to worker re-training programs and the like.

One of the problems American's have with globalization is how devastating the loss of jobs are too Americans being that all of their benefits are tied up with the companies.

One of the problems American companies have is that to avoid going over-seas they need to be able to increase and reduce their work force rapidly, to maintain their smaller profit margins. This is the reason for the surge in contract employees and temp workers in recent years.

Corporations spend approx. 500 billion a year just on compliance with Federal law on employee benefits (Source = the Radical Center (Link in first post)). One of the problems with this is increased operational costs, another is limiting employees to a cookie cutter programs, one size fits all. This applies to 401ks and health benefits.

If, we could separate those benefits from the employee and let the worker manage them directly:

1. 500 billion would go into corporate coffers, reducing operational costs,
2. workers would be able to get the plan that best suits them,
3. workers would not have to worry about changing plans when they change jobs,
4. The difference between contract and in house employees would be nearly meaningless
5. The reduced stress on employees would allow for employers to manage their
   work force size based on their needs at a rapid pace.

(Thanks Julian I learned how to do that from your post )

There is another benefit to workers, but this is likely a good thought for creating an entirely new topic on addressing healthcare.

Right now, because workers change jobs so frequently, Insurance companies have no incentive to cover preventative medicine. However, if the Insurance was managed directly by the consumer, the consumer would be more likely to stay with the same insurance long term. This would create an incentive for the insurance companies to cover preventive care and testing because it would reduce their costs down the road.

There are many innovations we can make that would allow us to adapt our country to take the next century head on. However, most of these are political hot potatos that few people in politics have the courage to address.

because if someone in a poor country can do the same job for about 10 times less pay, where does that 9 times difference in pay go? the shareholders/CEOs, etc.

I think that globalization can not work for everyone. It obviously works for multinational corporations because they are able to bypass tax laws and get away with inhumane conditions and low pay in poor countries when producing essentially the same product. To some extent, people in poor countries gain from globalization because they receive decent jobs (at least more decent compared to employment opportunities before these corporations came) and hopefully new technology. That leaves SOME trained workers of industrialized countries as the losers, i.e. the ones whose jobs are outsourced. I actually wrote an essay for my globalization class on the winners and losers of it. If there is interest I will be glad to post it here (its about 1000 words).

Pay is not the only factor in adding value.

Shipping cost increase the cost of doing business overseas if your primary market is America.

Productivity adds cost because it takes more workers to match the productivity of one worker.

Just to name a few.

If your job makes the company more money then it cost them, you will generally keep it. Most jobs that individually make money require a fair level of training, education and productivity. All of which are hard to find in any nation that has dramatically lower labor costs.

In my company's case we have people like me who work piece work on smaller jobs and then the hourly guys who work larger jobs. When we are short of work for the hourly guys the company simply can not afford to move them to the piece work side because they do not work on my side of the house at any where near our productivity level. Due to competition, we have a very low profit margin on new sales, so the company can't afford to move them over at their payrate. If layoffs loom in the future, the company will offer piece work rate positions to those who would be laid off before hand. If the employee chooses not to make that change they will be laid off.

Productivity is one of the main reasons so many industries are still here. Add to that shipping costs and risks, geopolitical costs and risks, as well as the minor amount of bad publicity a company gets and you can see why many would choose to stay. It's also the reason why companies in other countries choose to outsource TO the US.

As for your Essay, there really isn't a place to post it on AD, I don't think, but I would love to read it. Please feel free to PM me about it.

I am against globalization period. Nothing good can come from it period, not right now i feel. Most the companies that go overseas dont care for the workers, this is worse in third world countries, then the sell the product back to more developed nations and basically make a big profit from human suffering and human joy or need really, its sick. More to the point, how do nations apply rules to these beasts really, or what if any regulation can be applied to them. People say many reasons why companies do such activity, i think to be simple its mainly for a profit boost, like with ford. In america as companies like microsoft get bigger, they are going to eat the littler ones, and this is just that industry, though microsoft is not just in the area of personal computing anymore is it. I do agree that in many areas of the world help is needed to make them be able to stand on there own, but just like in the times of rome, most of the big guys are just trying to find someway to get something out of them really, which is also sick, and more over it hurts the local economies in which these companies leave, degrading overall more then it helps in any area, plus you have to think of all the rest the comes from it, like the psychological, or cultural repercussions to come from such behavior, i really cannot support it in any form currently.

Isn't this like being against the sky being blue? I mean, its not like people have a say....globalization is simply an evolutionary process, due primarily to increases in shipping, travel, and communications technology. There isn't anything that can be done to make it go away. So, railing against it would be like shouting to a glacier to stop...it isn't going to accomplish anything. All that can be done is adapt to it in the most advantageous way.

I think there is probably a good deal of confusion as to what globalization is. Globalization is merely growth to a global or worldwide scale (dictionary.com). This is why I say it is not a phenomenon that can be stopped...technology has simply reached a point where markets have expanded beyond country borders. This has been going on since there were markets...all that has changed is the scale. Markets were originally family oriented, then group, then village, then city, etc, etc. For all those out there that rail against the profit motivation, I have not seen long lines in the stores for people wanting to pay more for their goods. Nor have I heard of any tremendous demand in the stock market for companies not seeking to increase their profits. People buy things from the global market now for one simple reason--because they can. Nothing is going to stop that.

CJ,



I'm not against this...but how exactly do we enforce it? Also...doesn't this run the risk of perpetuating the image that America is seeking to enforce its standards on the rest of the world? Further, if a country is not as economically developed as we are, enforcing such standards might cause those companies to go under...leaving the workers with no jobs whatsoever. Taking these types of steps might be in the global long-term interest, but often result in shorter term disadvantages, affecting the very people who can only look in the short term.



Again, I'm not against this, but think its a bit more complicated than presented here. Companies that get these tax breaks make more money for their shareholders (good thing), have more to invest in productivity (good thing), are able to provide more jobs (good thing), which increases the tax base (good thing) and sell their goods to consumers cheaper (very good thing). I don't think you can just assume that eliminating some of these loopholes is in fact good for the country as a whole...it might be, but I would need to see a legitimate economic study (is that a contradiction in terms?) to bear it out.



Again, don't disagree, but in your own statement you minimize the need for this. America already IS great at innovation. I am glad to see you coming around to the conservative notion of justifiable tax breaks, though .



Ok, this one I just agree with. Worker training is beneficial all around..for the worker, for the company, and for the country.



The problem doesn't lie with higher education, it lies with the students. We live in a demand driven society...universities will provide classes that students want. However, I do realize that things do seem to take some time to wind their way up the ivory tower, so a little pushing couldn't hurt. Also, I don't think you should just assume that education in some of these areas is pointless...that goes against your worker training point above. Even in occupations where outsourcing is high...this is still a demand for skilled domestic workers in those areas. Domestic workers will always have an inherent advantage over foreign workers...they just need to make sure their skills are lined up with those advantages.



Self-correcting problem. If enough people can't get enough of the things that they want, then they will change. Right now, too many Americans are 'satisfied'--this creates little incentive to excel. I do think student comparisons need to be taken with a grain of salt. Generally, these comparisons are at the high school level (or earlier). Our system doesn't place nearly the emphasis on this level of education as other systems do...where your grades determine the university you get into, which then determines which job you'll get. Here, high school doesn't play nearly as important a role. So, it is natural that studies comparing these two will find a difference in attitude and aptitude.

well then, that dictionary gives a nice definition to that, maybe because i can call someone in germany that means i am helping in globalization then, sure you can look at it that way, or you can look at all the things that come with that nifty definition in the real world and so on, in terms of people making money from those at less of an advantage. If you want to take part of my post and show why i am wrong for using it, maybe you can use the rest of the post that backs my opinion then first, that also would be nice.

If you support globalization for being in some natural accord or something that is great, so i guess child labor is something that is also nice and cute or so on, and it to is in some reference book or something, so is sweatshops and so on, it also goes along with me being able to send an email to someone in france. I am not going against profit, but like how i have an environmental aspect to my thought, i would not like to just sit blindly to some things, i mean i really doubt it would fly to have such activities going on in america that companies do to various nations they go into, or causing floods and so on. i mean it could profit me by just shooting people and taking their wallets, but i imagine that is not a good thing in america or so on, i dont know about other nations

thank you though, and as for using evolution as a reference to it, can you actually find something that states cultural evolution was to go this way somewhere or do you just take it on faith, as far as i go, faith does not work to well with things, unless you like faith to build your car and so on. Human fate is in human hands i would imagine, though i dont imagine that is common thought either, so where do you go with globalization, and like i said i dont support it "right now" period, thank you again.

It's in all the 'Master of the Universe' handbooks....you didn't get a copy?



You missed my point, I think....you can support it or not support it...it's going to happen anyway. That doesn't make it good, or bad...just recognizes the inevitablility of it. So, it's not really something to support or not support, but rather something that must be adapted to. Also, FWIW, I'll lay money that you actually do 'support' it...every time you buy a good or service that exists due to it, which is almost impossible to avoid.

Its not in my biology specifically to produce a digital circuit anymore then it is to speak english, or to "globalize". I can however as allowed by my biology do such over time as in accord to stimulus if you will for words. That would be evolution applied in a cultural sense and why i cannot create that alien thought i cannot associate somehow to anything already existing, and or just speak the german language at will perfectly without having any exiting understanding of it. Its like asking why is a dog capable of playing games and or not wanting to at points, and a variety of other things we cannot fully explain yet.

I am not going to go into the chaos of it, but i doubt any person can fully explain perfectly what the very next 24 hour period will be like for them, or what they will feel or think about in that period of time. This fate if you will is rather up to us for the most part, and to globalize does not have to occur or even exist in modern thought actually. If you would for me go and read about early philosophy in particular that of western culture you can find all kinds of people working with thought and so on in human life and or cultures, and or pathology of certain things, like materialism. I would though, refrain from using evolution as in organic evolution in itself to denote that globalization is naturally going to occur, because nothing in that will support such a stance really right now, save taking a certain stance on the issue within your perception of it. That stance in itself would have to fall into the area of animal behavior if you want to stay in biology, and overall for the most part, evolution in terms of being applied to expalin human behavior is muddy at best, though i do feel its the bright spot on the map for such endevors or at least the best plateform to start with, its not 100% right now. most the other fields are more segregating then that, organic evolution deals with just those words in terms of how we look at things, now if you want to bump over to anthropology or sociology or something, you can then use those fields or so on to try to make your case if you want to try and use science.

In light of the real world, nations on the earth are becoming more connected, but i doubt really the term globalization to really cover at any depth what the real world reflects in terms of whats going on with that. For the most part its nationalist globalization, or tribal nationalization or just dumping your garbage on the street for other people to deal with. Like what would "globalization" be like if america was not dependent on the the foreign for energy needs and so on, the term does not cover much anything, but can be used as a blanket statement for a variety of things and so on. so you are stuck with relativity in use i would say from my perspective, or i might say its more of an abstraction in action

I actually go out of my way to practice what many might call "gorilla shopping". things that i dont approve of that would fall under globalization and or environmental destruction, or even that just goes to support something i dont like i dont give my money to, like how i made sure not to spend money in texas.

my overall stance is that i would state i dont support various effects, or actions, or so on under the umbrella statement or word globalization. Does that work for anymore interested?

It would really be up to corporations to enforce this. Corporations should be saying "Hey China, we want to bring millions of dollars into your country, but we are going to take our business to India unless you make some changes". Of course corporations don't do this because they don't care and the host countries don't improve conditions because they have no incentive to do so. It is a cycle that only corporations can break, but they won't do it unless we as consumers force them to.


The advantages of outsourcing should be enough, companies should not require additional incentive to outsource. Tax breaks are used to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others, you have to ask yourself if a policy of encouraging outsourcing is good for America - and being good for America extends beyond the bottom line in my opinion. To many people only look at the dollars in their argument, money isn't everything and there are things much more important.

If corporations want to outsource and hav a legitimate business reason to do so that is fine, but they shouldn't get handouts from the government for doing it.


I think that it does, when you consider how much students express what they "want" in college.

I have no idea what your experience with college was but I know what mine was, my wife is currently in school with people 10 years younger than she is and my parents are both professors at a university so I have been around it all of my life. The average student as a Freshman or Sophomore (and often as a Junior and Senior) doesn't know what they want, is trying to find their field, and doesn't have the courage to provide feedback to the school.

You can't expect the average 18 year old to march into the Dean's office and start laying out ideas for changing the school's computer science or business department, most of the time you are lucky if they'll participate in class or critique their professors.

What you need is experienced educators to wake up to the trends in the real world and react to them with their programs. Now of course many professors already know what is going on in the real world and have ideas on how to react (not all of them are ivory tower intellectuals), but university politics often get in the way. People have begged my father to take the job as Dean numerous times, but he refuses because of the politics. I'm sure many of the educators here know exactly what I'm talking about.

I too have my own ideas about what universities should be doing to prepare people cor careers in business and information technology but it would be largely off topic to discuss it here. But my point remains that Universities are responsible for change not students, students do have power but very few if any of them exercise it and when they do are often marginalized due to politics.

Im sitting on the fence with this issue but leaning toward globalization. Before I answer the question I would like some proof of this comment. What "handouts" does the government provide when a company outsources a job? From all of the sources that I have read oversea's companies are given incentives to manufacturer products in the US (which causes problems itself).

It's complicated vamp, but it does exist. Awhile back I came across this in the blogosphere. It is a re-print of a wall street Journal Article (reprinted because you have to register with WSJ to read their articles online).

Offshoring... blame the tax code?

Heres an excerpt:



It gets better later in the article.

I was going to go through the trouble to register so I could have access to the article. However, WSJOnline is a subscription service. I wasn't going to spend $79.00 just to re-read an article.

What it comes down to is that the US Tax code allows companies to not pay the full 35% tax on overseas income if that income remains invested outside of the US.

The other issue is tax incentives offered by other countries. In America, towns will offer tax abatements, grants, etc, to try to attract new businesses. Do a google search on "Globalization and Tax Incentives" and you will find story after story about other countries offering sweat tax deals to multi-national corporations to move there (Just like my little town offered a 20 year tax abatement to Home Depot to build here).

We can't do anything about the Tax Abatements (well we could end the near useless taxes on corporations, but that is for another thread), but we can end the tax loopholes to we give companies to setup overseas. IMHO We should flip them so that companies who stay here would get the tax benefit (assuming we don't decide to end the taxation on corporations that hurt everyone).

Hobbes, take a look at CR's post again. He's not talking about local or even national unions here. He's talking about globalizing the unions themselves, to make sure that working conditions and pay levels in countries overseas come up to some sort of minimum standards. This could actually work better in some places than economic sanctions from the Western World. As he said, it's working for his union in overseas dealings, perhaps it will work for others as well.

Also, Hobbes, just about every survey I read says that the USA has higher per-capita worker productivity than anywhere else in the world, with or without unions being in the picture. If that's truly the case, then how can you possibly place the blame for outsourcing on the unions? In some cases, mind you, I'm sure it is the case. On the other hand, if we are the most productive workforce in the world, you have to admit that the only possible reason then for going overseas with jobs, is that it can be done cheaper there, and not necessarily more productively, or even better in terms of quality.

Ok, I really need to see some numbers or information other than the blurb on a book jacket. And I have a few questions - like, who is going to be paying for this "portability" in healthcare benefits? The companies? Good luck. The employees? Most already cannot afford health insurance completely on their own, which is why they look for companies that provide insurance as a benefit. And, now you want to add the costs of the financial benefits on top of this?


I'm sorry, but this simply is no longer true at all. Take a look at the ever increasing number of high-education jobs being outsourced. Medical diagnostics and testing, accounting, personal and corporate tax preparation. We are no longer simply outsourcing $10 an hour call-center jobs to India, who will do it for $2 an hour. Now, we are beginning to outsource jobs that pay as much as $100,00 a year, because someone is willing to do it for $20,000 a year or less.

One last point -

Taxpayers already do subsidize the research into new drugs. To the tune of 40% to 50% of the research and development costs, through government run drug research and testing centers, public universities, and the like. And while I'm not sure we can enforce profit margin limits on drug companies, I think that any company who uses government subsidies to develop drugs, should have the life of their patent limited to 2 years. Then, "open-source" the patent, and allow any drug company to use the formula to make generic versions. The public shouldn't have to bear the cost of these drugs twice. Once in taxes, to pay for the research, and a second time in the form of obscene profit margins to the drug companies.

First of all, it is not from the book jacket but from the plans proposed in the book. Contrary to popular opinion I can, and occasionally do, read.

Your point however, is fair enough, all I can suggest is that you read the book, and others like it. It is a sound plan, that addresses the needs of both companies and people in this new global economy.

Who pays, the employee pays. However, the employee in most cases already pays over half of the cost of their benefits out of their check. Currently the rest is covered by the company. People will likely see a moderate pay increase once the company is no longer paying that (certainly not all of it). And the plan includes determining the income level where there and below the government would need to subsidize and even outright pay for it. The cost of medicare and medicaid alone (which would no longer be needed) should cover that.



Again, of wages was the only reason to outsource then there would be NO jobs left in America at all. Wages is only one element of the equation that makes up the cost difference between staying in the US and going overseas. There are areas where the US Government can address this to better serve the country in general. Such as eliminating the tax incentive to leave and instituting one to stay.




I don't agree with the patent limiting. People should be able to make their fortunes off of new ideas that they create. However, there are many ways we could institute profit margin limits on drugs researched with Government dollars. Price controls are one, taxes are another, Yet another is to charge them for all the expenses of drug development, including interest that the government incurred. I don't see how we can just write off the possibility.

Reducing the patent however, would reduce private research considerably, IMHO because that would reduce the profits window for companies. If companies don't turn a profit, they don't last. It is in their nature to do all the can to make the most money. We have allowed them to use the government to do this, all I suggest is that we charge them for it.

OS, I'm not suggesting we limit the patents on all medications. Look again. I'm saying we should limit those patents where taxpayers have subsidized most of the research and development. If a company wants to forego the government subsidies to developing a drug, by all means, they can keep the patent for as long as the law allows. If I'm picking up half the tab though, I want to see a significant reduction in the price of the drug in a reasonable period of time. Two years seems about right for the company to make a decent stand-alone profit, before they have to start competeing for shelf space with the generic makers.

I stand corrected, I am not sure if I think this is a better or worse solution to price controls but now that I see what I missed and understand where you were coming from I can see it as a viable alternative.

I blame it all on being sick LOL yes, even my ability to misread a post is the result of illness not just poor application of reading skills.

How complex of an issue is globalization. Is the EU a product of such a phenomenon, our is that globalization in the terms of capitalism? You can sit and debate about a great majority of things, but in terms of fact on how complex it is how do you find out. When the u.s says its going to be negative against france, what kind of reaction does that get from the EU itself. Does anyone seem to care about nationalism in this debate? what about how many people overseas speak english for some reason now. How will things turn out when the road network in eurasia is done or underway, how do the muslims feel about globalization or any particular muslim nation. What about regulations on product or standards for workers and so on. What are the ramifications of international hazmat standards on globalization and what that all means, what about the environment in this issue. being the states in america or america has a great many problems internally, how is such going to play out within context of pantheon of nations? What about the WTO in all of this? The list can really go on and on. Can america really afford to apply tariffs to competition that does better from overseas, is that fair practice, will the u.s pay any price for oil, or will we have another banana war? What does dope have to do with all of this? As far as i can see in terms of my opinion that state of humanity in terms of ignorance to anything, i dont really feel this issue, which is complex is really understood, which can lead to a great many things. how does the u.k feel about various institutions in their nation reflecting cannibalism i mean capitalism more. Is the sacking of the u.n for agendas good or bad in light of such a complex issue? Why are students in Taiwan going to chainese collages more so then American ones now? How is china going to feed its population, why does America consume double what china does in terms of energy, what about the environment again? How does china and various nations feel about americas stance and or words or actions in today’s globalized world, does spy satellites from china mean something good? I overall in the modern or now since of things, have a very hard time trying to support globalization, I do fancy the one world idea and think such can rid a great many problems, but the question is on such of can we actually do such positively, or again how complex is this issue really.

Very interesting overlandsailor. I can see the problem now. This is not anything new, it just happens to be a side effect of old legislation in a new world.



So how do we fix it?



Well I had an answer until I saw this point in the article.



But this is were I agree with you.



If it starts an "international game of tax chicken" so be it. I dont think many countries will be able to keep up with the US because of our GDP.
Though programs should be cut there's to much money being thrown around with little to no results. That should make up for the cost.

It's funny though because many of the people that are screaming about the tax cuts are also screaming about outsourcing.

On this issue, the Hypocrisy knows no bounds. Try to find a bottle co Heinz that's made in America. It is very difficult.

Look at the voting records of those decrying outsourcing. Many of these same people voted FOR NAFTA and other free trade agreements.

I do not oppose free trade. But if we are to compete for employers on the global scale lets at least make the effort.

Corporate revenues represented only 7.4 percent of all federal tax receipts in 2003. With the exception of 1983, this represents the lowest level on record (these data go back to 1934). source

With it only representing a small amount of overall revenues, perhaps the best approach for America would be to eliminate corporate taxation all together. Allowing all businesses, small to multi-national to grow by removing at least this one expense.

If this convinces even a few companies to stay, a few companies to expand and a few companies to open manufacturing plants, would the resulting increase in income taxes (for more people being employed) not make up the difference?

It might, it might not. But would this best serve the country?

Would it be better to approach the corporate tax code from a social engineering perspective? Giving large deductions for companies that provide substantial health and retirement benefits, voluntarily take on an $8.00 minimum wage, as well as those that exceed environmental standards?

Perhaps this new tax could be 25% (which seems to be the rough average of the industrialized world). Then, if a company meet all of the above standards, they would actually have a negative tax liability, resulting is a sizable refund similar to the earned income tax credit. We would effectively be subsidizing our industry to help compete on a global scale while ensuring that the standard we would for working Americans is upheld.

Would this serve America? Would it be likely, if companies met all this requirements that more people would work, making up so or all of the revenue loss and less people would need various types of public assistance, reducing the costs to the government?

I think, a solution will take an major effort and compromise by all political sides to come up with the numbers and policies that work. Of course, they would all have to open their minds and ears and think for a change, rather then continue with the same old tired politics. I am not sure that is possible.

I have to agree with Julian again. What we need is "an attitude adjustment". I'm not sure how Europeans/Brits see things, but America is almost anti-worker. Unions have a bad name and "the individual" is king.

The FDR democrats who leaned more toward labor are dying off and being replaced with capital-leaning Reagan democrats. So this philosopy is entrenched.

It's almost "wimpy" to suggest that works need help or that we should ALL look after American workers.

I read the post above about how unions need to focus on productivity....but that's a red-herring. As an ex-tech worker, I keep hearing how we need to "educate Americans" to do tech jobs, and that's why they were going to Asia or why they brought in visa workers to do them. It's all a facade....it's all about the $$$.

There's really nothing an American worker can do to compete with a comparable or even less than comparable worker who makes 1/5th his wage. In the long run globalization is a good thing, IMHO. But at the current rate of change, we'll have to wait for a lot of Chinese to become middle class while many Americans try to pay their $200,000 mortgage on $5/hr.

We can't compete with minimum wages for high-skilled work or very low wages for unskilled labor.

America needs to be much more labor-concerned. We need leadership that at least sets a course to keep the middle class around. We need a plan, we need guidance, we need to know what to do. Otherwise, all of this laissez faire is going to upset a large portion of the population who have college degree, Phds, years of experience, but are working at the local McDonalds.

The leadership of this country needs to do something....or they will be removed.

Why would you automatically assume that being pro-individual is being anti-worker? Especially when you consider that fact that one of the driving factors for the labor issue you discuss below is inflated wages due to unions..ie, they are a prime cause of globalization.



Then we need to shift those jobs to places where we can compete.



These last two statements are incongruous. If we cannot compete in these markets, why should we be focusing our efforts there? That seems like it would a wasted effort (which is why I posted above on the need to focus on productivity...so that we could be competitive in these markets).



While I wouldn't argue against such types of programs...what is preventing the individual from choosing their own course? Why should it be up to the government? While such programs might indeed be very beneficial to the country, nothing is preventing individuals from taking action on their own currently. Again, to me, if most workers wanted to look somewhere for this, their union would be the logical first place. If their union isn't offering such programs, then, as you suggest, a change in leadership would certainly be needed.

I never said pro-individual is being anti-worker, being pro-individual is being anti-society, er anti-collectivist per se. And you have to admit that workers for the most part are on the bottom of the food chain and without the support of society, i.e. laws (minimum wages, standard work week, child labor laws, etc. etc.), workers are at the mercy of businesses. Just look at the rest of the world.

So in a country that really values the individual, it's harder to find sympathy for workers, IMHO.



I have no problem with that. But isn't that the point? Would we ship them somewhere else if wages were comparable? It's not productivity as much as it's COST.



I meant America should be more concerned about labor in THIS country. Maybe my rambling caused the confusion.



The only thing individuals can do is panamount to boycotts, which have proven worthless in the grand scheme of things. Seriously, what can individuals do?? IMHO, I don't think anything can be done and you don't want to rely on corporations (the blokes that are making money off of globalization) to fix the problem.

To illustrate the point of ineffective individual efforts, imagine one manufacturing company that takes a stand and refuses to go to China, they stay in the US, produce superior product, but lose market to some other company who has no pensions, no health care costs, and wages less than $5/day per person. People will choose to buy the cheapest items. Boycotts always fail unless it's on some ungodly giant scale. People will always vote with their pocket book.

The only leverage you have is through LAWS, IMHO. Laws and leadership are the way to concur globalization. I forgot what columnist was ragging on the US leadership for having NO economic plan into the future, while dirt poor countries like India have goals and plans for the distant and far future. China knows what they are doing, we don't have a clue.

Gov't is the answer because our gov't IS the people. We just need a gov't that actually represents PEOPLE.

What is the solution to the problems Globalization causes American workers and how do we implement them?

We need to stop protecting corporations from globalization (no drugs from Canada, your steel imports example, etc. These things are allowing the corporations to be uncompetetitive in their prices.), and start protecting workers from it. American workers are incapable of competing with their counterparts oversea. We don't have the work ethic, the low cost of living, the skill, or the kind of laws that would allow us to enter such a competition. The solutions to these problems are either impossible to implement or immoral to implement. We would have to:

-Change our culture to one that is hardworking (the government cant do this, and the people wouldn't want to).

-Repeal safety regulations,get rid of the minimum wage,eliminate laws that prevent child labor and we would have to ban unions. (We could do this, but it would be immoral)

Half of this cant be done, and the other half shouldn't. Our workers just cant compete in a global enviroment. Therefore the only way to fight outsourcing, is to regulate or ban it (you'll argue this cant be done, but they said the same thing about getting rid of tax loop holes. Meanwhile just look at whats happening in Massachusetts).

I hate the term "globalization" because it's often though of in the same vain as "capitalism", i.e. that it's a "way of living".

The problem isn't global trade, we've had that forever. The problem isn't using cheap labor overseas, we've been doing that for a long time as well. The problem now is that with billions of people in Asia and millions who are now college educated, there isn't a job in the 1st world that can't be done by a desperate educate worker in the 3rd world for much, much less. And with the new electronic-age, jobs can be done anywhere.

"Globalization" doesn't even necessarily help 3rd world countries. Look at India, it's helping a few, but they were so ticked that the rest are getting shafted they voted the PM out.

The current way of doing things is going to be hugely detrimental to the US. We're bringing in cheap immigrant workers from south of the border, bringing in Visa workers as engineers, doctors, etc. and we're shipping a lot of skilled jobs to Asia.

There is no loyalty to the American worker. And tell me where the advantage is for reducing wages and jobs? You cut bottom lines for companies so their profits increase, which is great for the wealthy. But as a consumer, where is the benefit? If you don't have stock, what is the advantage?

My bills haven't gotten any smaller since my job was outsourced to India. My heat continues to rise, my gas is rising, my utilities, my food costs, mortgages/home costs, rent, etc. etc. All the basic necessities are INCREASING, while good jobs are becoming scarce and wages are stagnant if not coming down.

We need to address the PROBLEM of shipping all of our jobs overseas. We need real leadership that can at least help our society adapt to these changes. The problem is only going to get worse.

"Globalization" is not EVOLUTION. Globalization is companies taking advantage of their leverage: access to cheap labor markets and access to all consumer markets. Corporations want to sell you stuff, they just don't want to employ you. That's not evoluation, that's scandalous.